The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of forensic comparison of glass

Forensic Science International

Volumn 236, Issue , 2014, Pages 54-66

  Howes, Loene M ^a   Kirkbride, K Paul ^b   Kelty, Sally F ^a   Julian, Roberta ^a   Kemp, Nenagh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Flesch Kincaid grade level; Forensic science; Glass comparison; Lexical density; Statement writing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; READING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST;

EID: 84892869496     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Mnookin J.L. Scripting expertise: the history of handwriting identification evidence and the judicial construction of reliability. Virginia Law Review 2001, 87:1723-1845.
2. Roberts P. The science of proof: forensic science evidence in English criminal trials. Handbook of Forensic Science 2009, 446-484. Willan, Devon, UK. J. Fraser, R. Williams (Eds.).
3. Roberts D. Science, experts, and criminal justice: common sense, science, superstition, and scepticism. The Handbook of the Criminal Justice System 2002, 253-284. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. M. McConville, G. Wilson (Eds.).
4. Cashman K., Henning T. Lawyers and DNA: issues in understanding and challenging the evidence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 2012, 24:69-83.
5. Rothwell T. Presentation of expert forensic evidence. Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science 2010, 507-532. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK. P. White (Ed.).
6. Kelty S.F., Julian R., Ross A. Dismantling the justice silos: avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law. Forensic Science International 2013, 230:8-15.
7. Klare G.R. The Measurement of Readability 1963, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
8. Sand K., Eik-Nes N.L., Loge J.H. Readability of informed consent documents (1987-2007) for clinical trials: a linguistic analysis. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 2012, 7:67-78.
9. Howes L.M., Kirkbride K.P., Kelty S.F., Julian R., Kemp N. Forensic scientists' conclusions: how readable are they for non-scientist report-users?. Forensic Science International 2013, 231:102-112.
10. Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime and Justice: Law Enforcement Agencies. Year Book Australia, 2012 2012, (Catalogue Number 1301.0), http://www.abs.gov.au (accessed 28.06.13).
11. Halliday M.A.K., Martin J.R. The model. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power 1993, 22-50. The Falmer Press, London. M.A.K. Halliday, J.R. Martin (Eds.).
12. Hagge J. Disciplinary style manuals as reliable guides to scientific discourse norms. Technical Communication Quarterly 1997, 44:129-141.
13. Halliday M.A.K. On the language of physical science. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power 1993, 54-68. The Falmer Press, London. M.A.K. Halliday, J.R. Martin (Eds.).
14. Eades D. Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process 2010, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK.
15. Fang Z. Scientific literacy: a systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education 2005, 89:335-347.
16. Halliday M.A.K. Some grammatical problems in scientific English. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power 1993, 69-85. The Falmer Press, London. M.A.K. Halliday, J.R. Martin (Eds.).
17. Roland M.-C. Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication. Journal of Science Communication 2009, 8:1-7. Available at: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/02/Jcom0802%282009%29A04/Jcom0802%282009%29A04.pdf (accessed 20.11.13).
18. Horn K. The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. Bioscience 2001, 51:1086-1093.
19. Aitken C. An introduction to a debate. Law, Probability and Risk 2012, 11:255-258.
20. Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J., Champod C., Evett I.W., Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Science and Justice 2011, 51:43-49.
21. Ligertwood A., Edmond G. Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law, Probability and Risk 2012, 11:289-302.
22. Berger C. Criminalistics is reasoning backwards: logically correct reasoning in forensic science and in the courtroom. Nederlands Juristenblad 2010, 13:784-789.
23. de Keijser J., Elffers H. Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, Crime and Law 2012, 18:191-207.
24. Ligertwood A., Edmond G. Discussion paper: a just measure of probability. Law, Probability and Risk 2012, 11:365-369.
25. Benjamin R.G. Reconstructing readability: recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review 2012, 24:63-88.
26. Clerehan R., Buchbinder R., Moodie J. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice 2005, 20:334-344.
27. Eggins S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics 1994, Pinter, London.
28. Gholami J., Mosalli Z., Nikou S.B. Lexical complexity and discourse markers in soft and hard science articles. World Applied Sciences Journal 2012, 17:368-374.
29. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 1948, 32:221-233.
30. Flesch R. The Art of Readable Writing 1949, Harper, New York. first ed.
31. Kincaid J.P., et al. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel 1975, Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN, (Research Branch Report No. 8-75).
32. Mosenthal P.B., Kirsch I.S. A new measure for assessing document complexity: the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 1998, 41:638-657.
33. Berelson B. Content Analysis in Communication Research 1952, Free Press, New York.
34. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology 2004, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
35. Babbie E.R. Unobtrusive research. The Practice of Social Research 2010, 331-361. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. 12th ed. E.R. Babbie (Ed.).
36. Sproule W. Content analysis. Social Research Methods 2010, 320-350. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. M. Walter (Ed.).
37. Wu J. Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology 2011, 26:1345-1349.
38. Curran J.M., Hicks T.N., Buckleton J.S. Reporting glass evidence. Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence 2000, 153-163. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
39. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A., McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice 2000, 40:233-239.
40. Keane P. Expert Witnesses in Proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Practice Note CM 7) 2011, Federal Court of Australia, Canberra.
41. Berg B.L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences 2009, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. 7th ed.
42. Hsieh H.-F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005, 15:1277-1288.
43. Calderón J.L., Fleming E., Gannon M.R., Chen S.-C., Vassalotti J.A., Norris K.C. Applying an expanded set of cognitive design principles to formatting the Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP) longitudinal survey. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2008, 51(Suppl. 2):S83-S92.
44. Feufel M.A., Schneider T.R., Berkel H.J. A field test of the effects of instruction design on colorectal cancer self-screening accuracy. Health Education Research 2010, 25:709-723.
45. Graves M.F., Graves B.B. Assessing text difficulty and accessibility. Scaffolding Reading Experiences: Designs for Student Success 2003, Christopher-Gordon, Norwood, MA. second ed.
46. Doak C.C., Doak L.G., Root J.H. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills 1996, J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA. second ed.
47. Donders J. A survey of report writing by neuropsychologists. I. General characteristics and content. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2001, 15:137-149.
48. Donders J. A survey of report writing by neuropsychologists. II. Teat data, report format, and document length. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2001, 15:150-161.
49. Shrank W., Avorn J., Rolon C., Shekelle P. Effect of content and format of prescription drug labels on readability, understanding, and medication use: a systematic review. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2007, 41:783-801.
50. Hirsh D., Clerehan R., Staples M., Osborne R.H., Buchbinder R. Patient assessment of medication information leaflets and validation of the evaluative linguistic framework. Patient Education and Counseling 2009, 77:248-254.
51. American Psychological Association Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 2010, Author, Washington, DC. 6th ed.
52. Pelco L.E., Ward S.B., Coleman L., Young J. Teacher ratings of three psychological report styles. Training and Education in Professional Psychology 2009, 3:19-27.
53. Harrison S., Bakker P. Two new readability predictors for the professional writer: pilot trials. Journal of Research in Reading 1998, 21:121-138.
54. Bourrough-Boenisch J. International reading strategies for IMRD articles. Written Communication 1999, 16:296-316.
55. Meyer B.J.F., Marsiske M., Willis S.L. Text processing variables predict the readability of everyday documents read by older adults. Reading Research Quarterly 1993, 28:235-249.
56. Harvey V.S. Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2006, 62:5-18.
57. Allnutt S.H., Chaplow D. General principles of forensic report writing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2000, 34:980-987.
58. Mallin B., Beimcik J., Hopfner L. Teacher ratings of three school psychology report recommendation styles. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2012, 27:258-273.
59. Britton B.K., Gulgoz S. Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology 1991, 83:329-345.
60. Gopen G.D., Swan J.A. The science of scientific writing. American Scientist 1990, 78:550-558.