I am finding the reading level advertised on some of the books that we read in class to be inconsistent. A person reading at the 4th grade level should be able to read a book listed as a 4.0 GL book without struggling much. I am interested in comparing the GL that is printed on books by the publisher with some of the formulas that are out available, but do not now have one such formula. Can someone please guide me to a formula which they have found to be reliable?
Re: Reading Level Formulas
Hi John,
I’ve been studying readability lately. The President of the IRA division on Readability suggests the Dale-Chall is more accurate than the Fry (albeit more time-consuming.) I use the Fry when I’m in a hurry. She also uses DRP software for a quick look.
Below Grade 3, I believe most scholars believe more in the Harris-Jacobsen. It is more oriented toward vocabulary words on the PP, P, Gr 1, 2 word lists published by Harris/Jacobsen and many others in the early 80’s and before. Now, folks who know this stuff better than I tell me that this formula (Harris/Jacobsen) is much less reliable after third grade.
BTW, lots of informal reading inventories use the Harris-Jacobsen for PP-Gr 8 passage readability study. I think the Burns Roe differs. I’m not sure what the John’s Reading Inventory uses since Dr. Johns doesn’t publish that in his reading inventory manual. Interesting. Probably more than you wanted to know.
Re: Reading Level Formulas
Personally, I’ve never found a formula to be worth more than a general guide to readability (and when the topic comes up among librarians, they agree). Because the number of syllables is a critical factor, “important” is harder to read than “chasm.” Writing style and other confounding factors (is it The Pigman, where the narrator switches back & forth from chapter to chapter? Is the setting foreign to my student? Is there a lot of dialog, or very little?)
This is what makes the Chall-Dale more accurate
It combines syllable numbers, sentence length, and where key words fall on the spectrum of difficulty. It isn’t easy to use, though.
Re: This is what makes the Chall-Dale more accurate
For what has been asked (4th grade level) the Fry is damned good. Put in a dose of common sense - For example I change syllable counts by increasing the count on words like: chasm plethora chaos inert obtuse placate
I lower the syllable counts on words like: baby goody lollipop America Washington October into
I do a Fry and then I do a Sense - I prefer the common Sense.
The latest issue of The Reading Teacher has an article by Edward Fry that discusses the issue of readability formulas. It’s in Vol. 56(3), p. 286-91. He recommends using a standard formula in addition to the levels that are used by publishers. The Fry Readability Formula has been around for a long time and uses sentence length and number of syllables as criteria. I used it extensively in the past. Fry does state that it’s more indicative of general grade level but is not as accurate for early levels, for instance, in first grade. Grace