A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports: Recommendations for readability

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 456-468

  Howes, Loene Monique ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

expert opinion; expert reports; forensic science; readability; statement writing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIAN; COMPREHENSION; DNA DETERMINATION; EXPERT SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; READING; SCIENTIST; THEORY; VISUAL INFORMATION; WRITING;

EID: 84942363241     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2015.1004194     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Wyatt, N, Stolper, D. Science literacy in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Aust Acad Sci, 2013. Available from: http://www.science.org.au/publications/science-literacy-report
2. Thomson, S, De Bortoli, L. Exploring scientific literacy: how Australia measures up. The PISA 2006 survey of students' scientific, reading and mathematical literacy skills. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER, 2008. Available from: http://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/2
3. McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behav. 2009;33(5):436-453.
4. Smith LL, Bull R, Holliday R. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. J. Forensic Sci. 2011;56(2):409-414.
5. Martire KA, Kemp RI, Watkins I, Sayle MA, Newell BR. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behav. 2013;37(3):197-207.
6. Kelty SF, 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 Sci Int. 2013;230(1-3):8-15.
7. Klare GR. The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1963.
8. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthopaedics and Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2572-2580.
9. Howes LM, Kirkbride KP, Kelty SF, Julian R, Kemp N. Forensic scientists' conclusions: how readable are they for non-scientist report-users? Forensic Sci Int. 2013;231:102-112.
10. Howes LM, Kirkbride KP, Kelty SF, Julian R, Kemp N. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of forensic comparison of glass. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;236:54-66.
11. Howes LM, Julian R, Kelty SF, Kemp N, Kirkbride KP. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of DNA analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;237:7-18.
12. Benjamin RG. Reconstructing readability: recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educ Psychol Rev. 2012;24(1):63-88.
13. Mosenthal PB, Kirsch IS. A new measure for assessing document complexity: the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. J Adolesc Adult Lit. 1998;41(8):638-657.
14. Berelson B. Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Free Press, 1952.
15. Sproule W. Content analysis. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Walter M; 2010. Social research methods; 320-350.
16. Hirsh D, Clerehan R, Staples M, Osborne RH, Buchbinder R. Patient assessment of medication information leaflets and validation of the evaluative linguistic framework. Patient Edu Counsel. 2009;77:248-254.
17. Feufel MA, Schneider TR, Berkel HJ. A field test of the effects of instruction design on colorectal cancer self-screening accuracy. Health Edu Res. 2010;25(5):709-723.
18. Found B, Edmond G. Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2012;44(2):193-196.
19. Howes LM, Martire KA, Kelty SF. Response to recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS report-standards for formatting and reporting expert evaluative opinions: where do we stand? Forensic Sci Policy Manage: An Int J. 2014;5(1-2):1-14.
20. Graves, MF, Graves, BB. Assessing text difficulty and accessibility. Scaffolding reading experiences: designs for student success. 2nd ed. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon; 2003.
21. Britton BK, Gulgoz S. Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. J Edu Psychol. 1991;83 (3):329-345.
22. Rothwell T. Presentation of expert forensic evidence. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
23. White P; 2010. Crime scene to court: the essentials of forensic science. 3rd ed; 507-532.
24. Halliday MAK. On the language of physical science. London: The Falmer Press.
25. Halliday MAK, Martin JR; 1993. Writing science: literacy and discursive power; 54-68.
26. Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1 (1):7-28.
27. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221-233.
28. Roland M-C. Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication. J Sci Commun. 2009;8(2):1-7.
29. Keane P. Expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Practice note CM 7). Canberra: Federal Court of Australia, 2011.
30. Klare GR. Readability indices: do they inform or misinform? Inf Des J. 1981;2(3):251-255.
31. Peters HP. Scientists as public experts. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge
32. Bucchi M, Trench B. 2008. Handbook of public communication of science and technology; 131-146.
33. Fang Z. Scientific literacy: a systematic functional linguistics perspective. Sci Edu. 2005;89:335-347.
34. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott; 1996.
35. 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. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(5):783-801.
36. Allnutt SH, Chaplow D. General principles of forensic report writing. Aust NZ J Psychiat. 2000;34:980-987.
37. Bourrough-Boenisch J. International reading strategies for IMRD articles. Written Commun. 1999;16(3):296-316.