The misconception of readability scores: why they don't guarantee understanding

Organisations and professionals are striving to ensure that their messages are not only received but understood by their audience. Popular tools that assess readability, such as Flesch-Kincaid scoring, have emerged to assist these efforts.  These are based on simple algorithms and are very easy to use and implement. It's a metric many turn to with the belief that a good score ensures their content is easy to understand. However, this belief is not as straightforward as it might seem.

The reality behind readability scores

It's common to hear statements like, "This communication has a good Flesch-Kincaid score, so we can be confident that it's easy to understand." However, this is not always a safe assumption. Readability scores measure how easy something is to read, not necessarily how easy it is to understand. These are different but related aspects of communication and confusing them can lead to drawing false conclusions.

Here are four critical reasons why relying solely on readability scores can be misleading:

1. Familiarity of words matters more than length

Readability scores often assume that longer words are harder to understand than shorter ones. While this can be true in many cases, it's not a universal rule. A longer word familiar to the reader is more effective than a shorter one they don’t understand. For instance, the word "belongings" might be longer, but it is more familiar and more easily understood than a shorter, less common term like "assets".

2. Numbers aren't accounted for

One of the significant limitations of readability scores is their inability to account for numbers. A text filled with numbers might score well because it has a lot of "short words," but this doesn't mean the reader will understand it, especially when you are communicating complex financial concepts. Many people struggle with numeracy and experience anxiety when faced with numbers. This is a crucial factor that readability scores overlook.

3. Layout, visuals, and information hierarchy are ignored

Another shortfall of readability scores is their disregard for the layout, visuals, and the information hierarchy within the content. How information is presented can significantly impact understanding. A well-structured piece of content with clear headings, bullet points, and visuals can be much easier to understand than a poorly laid out message. The order of information and relative prominence of different messages makes a difference to what customers understand too, but again a readability score doesn’t give any indication of this.

4. Readability scores can't judge logical flow

Finally, readability scores don't evaluate whether your narrative is logical and well-structured. A document might be easy to read on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but if the overall message is poorly organised, the reader is likely to struggle to understand the key information they need.

A balanced approach to effective communication

In summary, a better readability score does not always translate to better comprehension. While readability tests can serve as useful indicators, they should be used with caution. Of course, achieving good readability is not a bad thing, it’s just a different thing to achieving good customer understanding

To truly improve communication, especially in fields where customer understanding is critical, it's essential to adopt a broader approach. This includes considering word familiarity, numeracy, the layout/structure, and the logical flow of information.

Customer testing and feedback are invaluable in this process. By focusing on these areas, firms can move beyond readability scores and create communications that are not only easy to read but also easy to understand. In the end, it's about ensuring that your message is clear, concise, and understandable to your audience—because that is what truly matters.