The following is an overview and specification of each readability test applied. The following rules apply to all tests:
- Must be applicable to all languages, or transferable between languages through generic adaptation
- Must be documented in piece of academic research, available online
- Must have a reasonably performant implementation
Applicability — Modified by a localized grade modifier.
Implementation — Basic formula: Sentences, words, characters.
Explanation — Yields an approximate representation of the grade level needed to comprehend the text.
Source — Senter, R.J.; Smith, E.A. (November 1967). "Automated Readability Index". Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: iii. AMRL-TR-6620.
Applicability — Adapted to various languages.
Implementation — Basic formula: Average length of sentences, syllables in words.
Explanation — Yields a number between 0 and 100, corresponding to a graded difficulty -- 0 being easiest, 100 hardest.
Source — Flesch, R. (1948). "A new readability yardstick". Journal of Applied Psychology. 32 (3): 221–233.
Applicability — Modified by a localized grade modifier.
Implementation — Basic formula: Average length of sentences, syllables in words.
Explanation — Transforms Flesch Reading Ease into grade level.
Source — Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L., & Chissom, B.S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.
Applicability — Modified by a localized grade modifier.
Implementation — Basic formula: Average number of sentences, words, letters.
Explanation — Yields an approximate representation of the grade level needed to comprehend the text.
Source — Coleman, Meri; and Liau, T. L. (1975); A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 283–284.
Applicability — Modified by a localized grade modifier.
Implementation — Basic formula: Amount of sentences, polysyllabic words.
Explanation — Yields an approximate estimation of the years of education needed to understand a piece of writing.
Source — McLaughlin, G. Harry (May 1969). "SMOG Grading — a New Readability Formula". Journal of Reading. 12 (8): 639–646.
Applicability — Generally relevant.
Implementation — Basic formula: Total words, number of sentences, number of long words (more than 6 characters).
Explanation — Yields an approximate estimation of the years of education needed to understand a piece of writing.
Source — Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet. Stockholm: Liber.
Applicability — Generally relevant.
Implementation — Basic formula: Total number of sentences, number of long words (more than 6 characters).
Explanation — Transforms Lesbarhetsindex into grade level.
Source — Anderson, J. (1983). Lix and Rix: Variations on a little-known readability index. Journal of Reading, 26(6), 490–496.
When highlighting paragraphs, the method is plain iteration through and wrapping each detected paragraph in p
-tags to preserve whitespaces and line-breaks.
Implementation — Iteration, basic filtering: Amount of words per sentence.
Explanation — Sentences shorter than 20 words are regarded as normal; more than 20 but less than or equal to 25 are fairly difficult; more than 25 but less than or equal to 30 are difficult; more than 30 but less than or equal to 40 are very difficult; more than 40 are extremely difficult.
Source — Gústafsdóttir, Guðrún (2019). "Readability: Why are long sentences over 20 words?".
Implementation — Iteration, implements hyphenation: Amount of syllables per word.
Explanation — Words with 1 syllable are regarded as easy; 2 syllables as normal; 3 syllables as difficult; 4 syllables as very difficult; 5 or more syllables as extremely difficult.
Source — Gústafsdóttir, Guðrún (2017). "Readability: What are complex words and how are they determined?".