Rudolf Flesch (1911–1986)

PDFF3 | In 1943 the writer developed a statistical formula for the objective measurement of readability (comprehension difficulty). The formula was based on a count of three language elements. average sentence length in words, number of affixes, and number of references to people. Since its publication, the formula has been put to use in a wide variety of fields. For example, it has been applied to newspaper reports, advertising copy, government publications (19), bulletins and leaflets for farmers, materials for adult education, and children's books. Its validity has been reaffirmed by five independent studies: the formula ratings of psychology textbooks substantially agreed with ratings by students and teachers; the formula scores rated specially edited radio news, newsmagazine, and Sunday news-summary copy "more readable" than comparable newspaper reports (18); advertisements, rated "more readable" by the formula, showed higher readership figures; and articles that were simplified with the aid of the formula brought increased readership in two successive split-run tests. | In addition, many people found it hard to get used to the scoring system, which generally ranges from 0 ("very easy") to 7 ("very difficult"). Also, the average time needed to test a 100-word sample is six minutes. This makes the application of the formula considerably faster than that of earlier formulas, which required reference to word lists (e.g. Gray-Leary (8) or Lorge, but it is still too long for practical use. The revision of the formula presented in this paper is an attempt to overcome these shortcomings and make the formula a more useful instrument |

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Procedure
3. Findings
-- Table 1 Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Regression Weights of Word and Sentence Length
-- Table 2 Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Regression Weights of Personal Words and Sentences
-- Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Two Criteria
4. Comment
-- Table 4 Comparative Analysis of The New Yorker (October 26, 1946) and the Reader's Digest (November, 1946)
5. The Formulas Restated
-- Table 5 Pattern of "Reading Ease" Scores
-- Table 6 Pattern of "Human Interest" Scores
6. Sample Application
-- Table 7 Comparative Analysis of Treatment of Same Theme in Life and The New Yorker
7. References

SA - https://www.librarything.com/work/31380412/book/254107191 | https://www.librarything.com/work/31375235/book/254062646 | https://www.librarything.com/work/31372556/book/254036275 | https://www.librarything.com/work/3403140/book/253608092 |
RT - Comprehension
BT - Algorithm
NT - Measurement
UF - A study of the formulas used to measure readability and presenting an updated version with a comparative study.
SN - This is a PDF copy of the article. (This entry does not reference a hierarchical list)… (more)

This book has been really important in life to me. I first came across it ...or maybe it was an earlier version..in about 1967 when I was writing a master's thesis and it just blew me away, For the first time that I could recall, somebody had actually taken the trouble to compare what was in a piece of prose: in terms of number of pronouns, number of verbs, length of sentences etc., and the comprehension retention of the content. I think this was Flesch's Phd research project...or something like this and I think he wrote the original versions around 1946 in conjunction with another author. But it really opened my eyes to what good writing could be. He is not saying that one should never write like Proust with one sentence continuing over 3 pages or having dozens of adjectives in the one sentence. But he is saying that if you want to be read and understood then you should pay attention to these rules.
1. Write about people, things, and facts.
2. Write as you talk.
3. Use contractions
4. Use the first person
5. Quote what was said
6. Quote what was written
7. Put yourself in the reader's place
8. Don't hurt the reader's feelings
9. Forestall misunderstandings
10. Don't be too brief
11. Plan a beginning, middle and end
12. Go from the rule to the exception, from the familiar to the new
13. Use short names and abbreviations
14. Use pronouns rather than repeating nouns
15. Use verbs rather than nouns
16. Use the active voice and a personal subject
17. use small, round figures (I'm assuming he means numbers here)
18. Specify. Use illustrations, cases, examples
19. Start a new sentence for each new idea
20. Keep your sentences short
21. Keep your paragraphs short
22. Use direct questions
23. Underline for emphasis
24. Use parenthesis for casual mention
25. Make your writing interesting to look at.
As I've just copied out these rules, I realised how many of them have stuck with me over the years....almost as if I've had Rudolph sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear: use short sentences, round off your numbers, use verbs....use pronouns. etc.
The great strength of the work is that he's actual demonstrated that all of these work: they increase the readability and the comprehension.
I used his technique for analysing my thesis and various research papers that I published based on my thesis. In those days it was hard work....actually taking random pages and counting words etc. Today it's a simple as using the tool built into Microsoft Word. (They actually adopted his methodology.....I hope he gets some royalties).
More recently, I wrote a guide book for the United Nations ....which was subjected to exhaustive peer reviews. One of the reviewers criticised my writing style as being "too informal". However, I had run the publication through the Flesch test and was able to say that it was written at the level which was appropriate for a US high school graduate to understand. Both the editor and the head of publications agreed that this was "just right" for the target audience which would include many people for whom English was not their first language. So my critic was set right back in his place.
I've given a copy of this book to all of my children with the strong recommendation that they apply it to their written work.
My recollection is that when I first read this book it was really just about writing and the speaking, and the thinking bit came later. But I can't be sure. Anyway, it's kind of more of the same. Try and be clear; anticipate misunderstandings etc., and I have consciously tried to do this. (Though my wife would say that I'm a poor communicator....c'est la vie).
Anyway, bottom line.....this is an old book now but still a great book and well worth the time to digest and understand and apply the rules. Many books have since emerged and are maybe a bit slicker and have advanced Flesch's principles slightly...but it's as good or much better than anything else I've ever read on the subject. Easily worth five stars from me.… (more)