Talk:Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, how is Dr Seuss's first name spelt? Theodor or Theodore? I have seen both in entries. §Peck123 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)§

I hope this is now sufficiently Flesched out. Joyous 05:50, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • The article is delightful. The pun, however, may be more than I Kin-stand. - Nunh-huh 05:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ouch. Joyous 13:11, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Debate archive: Result was obvious keep. Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level

  • Delete, no content. (a speedy delete, really) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, now. Nunh-huh has made it into an interesting stub (rather than the preceeding twaddle about beavers). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I'll hold off. I mean no disrespect at all to Nunh-huh's work, but I think it's now accurate, but too stubby. Great props to the work, but perhaps it will be stronger before voting ends. Geogre 02:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reading levels are Big Business, and the Flesch-Kincaid is one of the more commonly used formulas. The stub has a lot of potential, although it's not as charming as the beaver paragraph was. I'll try to work on it a bit. Joyous 03:29, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the article. If no one objects, I'd like to make this page a redirect to Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests, because there are 2 separate tests that are so tightly entertwined that it's hard to write about 1 without the other. "Reading Level" seems to be an informal name for them. Joyous 05:13, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Ok. How is it now? Joyous 05:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done! Do the re-direct thing as suggested. I don't think it's a stub any longer. Noisy 09:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, sure, plenty notable. I always enjoy checking this stuff when I'm writing a paper on MS Word. Everyking 10:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Day-um! Now that's what I'm talking about. Redirect, absolutely, and keep. (I always hated clicking on it, myself, and took a perverse pride in seeing my fog index increase.) Geogre 12:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Definately a good article now. Move to Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests if that is the more proper name, but the content is a definate keep. TPK 16:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Microsoft Word actually uses it for readability analyses. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Will it hurt anything to go ahead and do the re-direct now, while the article is on VFD? Joyous 00:45, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. I moved it. - Nunh-huh 02:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote closed Result was: Obvious keep

Contents

[edit] Question

I guess this test is only applicable to English-language texts. Am I right? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? – Kpalion (talk) 19:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm For. --logixoul 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can someone indicate what US grades are? Specifically indicate what student age matches a particular grade (assuming regular schooling starts at 5 years of age). In the UK we have at least three different educational systems. Philip, 22:45, 31 October 2005

Seconded, the section explaining the scoring means nothing to people who are not familiar with the American school system. Ages should be used rather than school 'grades'. Fyorl 19:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop changing scores!

Can we stop with the changing of scores? It's completely unnecessary, especially as everyone uses a different calculator anyhow, which is why this article's Flesch-Kincaid keeps changing radically. Just leave at "This article has a Flesch-Kincaid of about ..." and leave it at that. Tejastheory 07:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

KWord says that the reading ease of the article is 55. Who has different values and how did they get them? Note that this question is timed and after some time I will probably put in 55 if nobody gives anything else. --logixoul 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. --logixoul 11:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I imagine that people are getting different values by running a calculator on different versions of the article. Joyous | Talk 13:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason everyone gets different scores is because everyone uses a different calculator. KWord will get a score, and an online calculator will get a different score. It's all due to the formula, which includes "syllables" which isn't something that all calculators will count the same. Tejastheory 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If what you said is valid, then the article needs to be updated to say that the score isn't an absolute thing and different tools are likely to report different scores. Anybody disagree? --logixoul 13:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The score can obviously not be a static number in this case anyway, since it refers to an article on wikipedia, which by its nature it not a static text. The score should be removed or should contain a clause that notes that it is not necessarily an exact score. --jackohare 04:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the 'this article's score' altogether, because I don't believe that it's a particularly useful example. General samples are usually far more helpful. Why should this article give a sample of the readability score for any piece of writing. Such specific examples do little to help understanding. It's an inevitable trivium, but hardly an illuminating one. Ingoolemo talk 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Two, or perhaps even a series of, examples would obviously have greater utility than a single one. Pcb21 Pete 10:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --logixoul 12:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I cut and pasted the paragraph into Word (British English version) and used that programme's readability function, which scored it as: Passive sentences 40% Flesch reading ease 22.0 Flesch-Kincaid grade level 15.1 01.11.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US grade levels

With respect to US grade levels: Children generally begin 1st grade between ages 5 and 6. 2nd graders are 6-7, 3rd graders are 7-8, 4th graders at 8-9, 5th graders are 9-10, etc. 12th graders (the final grade) are usually 18-19.

That should be 17-18 years old for 12th graders, unless you mean to imply that most Americans redo a grade. --jackohare 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is to take the grade level and just add 5 to figure out their approx age. Hence a 12th grader would be 17 years old. 1st grader would be 6 years old. It's not an exact science, but it's a good quick and dirty way to find age equivalency.

Every other reference I've seen has first graders at 6-7 Fanx 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the southern states. Here in Seattle we start them at 5.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, we start first grade at age 6, then usually turn age 7 somewhere in the year. So therefore, in second grade, we start out age 7, then turn age 8, so on so forth. At high school graduation, most students are 18, or will be turning 18 the following summer.

Either way, the article should use ages and not US grade levels. Fyorl 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Grade levels are equivalent to number of years of post-kindergarten education. For example, a 2nd grader has had two years of education after kindergarten. Not all people learn at the same rate. Some have to repeat grades for various reasons. Some people can skip grades. Grade level is a more accurate indicator of reading ability than age. A person who has an above average IQ and high aptitude for verbal skills will read much better than a person who has both a lower IQ and a lower aptitude for verbal skills. They may be the same age, but their reading skills are far different. (BTW, with regard to snide remarks about "southern states", I'd put any Floridian scores up against those from the Pacific Northwest any day of the week.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.186.19 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formula Error?

I have tried using the formula for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and suspect an error: although the final additive constant is widely noted on the web as 15.59, one cannot obtain consistency between the ASL, ASW and the scores with this value: given ASL, RE and GL one can invert the equations and determine ASW. Using the given value of 15.59 one obtains two different results (difference several percent) for ASW; however with a value of 15.9 one obtains almost perfect agreement (~<0.1% difference).

I have tried to find the original paper or other authoritative source online but failed; maybe one of the original author's or contributors is more connected and can verify the formula? I tried MIL-M-38784 but that doesn't give the formula (only states a maximum Grade Level); the US National Technical Information Service for whom Kincaid did work on "developing readability scores" doesn't go back to his 1975 paper.

I suspect the formula currently provided is just the result of a typo that propagated...

Julian I Do Stuff 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Way of Deciding Level of Words by Syllibles?

I personally believe that the Flesh-Kincaid Formulas are an easy, programmable function to estimate grade levels, but there are many intricate words in the english language that have one or two syllables and simple words that consist of 4 or more syllables. If the system is to be used as a reliable source of grading a piece of writing, then there should be a list for the "levels of difficulties" of all words. I too realize that this is inpractical, and near impossible, but this system can be completly wrong. You can write a "12th" grade or higher piece of work and give it to a 4th grader and they could understand the paper with ease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.61.39 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)