Reply to Klare and Flesch re: "simplification of Flesch reading ease formula"

Abstract

Reply to Klare (1952) and Flesch (1952) who commented on the current authors' orginial article (see record 1952-03973-001 ) on Flesch's reading ease formula. Klare and Flesch who attack the statements that this simpler method "would require no knowledge of syllabification on the part of the analyst" (2, p. 333) and it "would not require knowledge of syllabification on the part of the analyst" (2, p. 337). The writers plead guilty to careless overstatement. What should be substituted is a statement to the effect that this simpler method requires less precise knowledge of how to break up polysyllabic words into their components because such words are to be ignored. Even though we admit that the simpler method requires almost as much knowledge of syllabification as does the more complex method the chief advantage of the simpler method lies in the fact that it would obviously be much faster. The current authors stress that "time saving" is the great virtue of the new formula. It is to be hoped that this "time saving" virtue will lead to a far greater utilization of Flesch's important contribution in a greater variety of situations than is now the case. The purpose of the new formula with the table for facilitating the computation of reading ease scores is to persuade practical men to use it in their daily work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)