Forensic Scientists' conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report users?

Loene Howes, Paul Kirkbride, Sally KELTY, Roberta Julian, Nenagh Kemp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)102-112
Number of pages10
JournalForensic Science International
Volume231
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Expert Testimony
Lawyers
Criminal Law
Decision Support Techniques
Vocabulary
Police
Glass
Reading
Communication
Education
Research

Cite this

Howes, Loene ; Kirkbride, Paul ; KELTY, Sally ; Julian, Roberta ; Kemp, Nenagh. / Forensic Scientists' conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report users?. In: Forensic Science International. 2013 ; Vol. 231. pp. 102-112.
@article{5baa37d413d643b7b7008acdafce7833,
title = "Forensic Scientists' conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report users?",
abstract = "Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.",
author = "Loene Howes and Paul Kirkbride and Sally KELTY and Roberta Julian and Nenagh Kemp",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026",
language = "English",
volume = "231",
pages = "102--112",
journal = "Forensic Science",
issn = "0379-0738",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Forensic Scientists' conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report users? / Howes, Loene; Kirkbride, Paul; KELTY, Sally; Julian, Roberta; Kemp, Nenagh.

In: Forensic Science International, Vol. 231, 2013, p. 102-112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forensic Scientists' conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report users?

AU - Howes, Loene

AU - Kirkbride, Paul

AU - KELTY, Sally

AU - Julian, Roberta

AU - Kemp, Nenagh

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.

AB - Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026

M3 - Article

VL - 231

SP - 102

EP - 112

JO - Forensic Science

JF - Forensic Science

SN - 0379-0738

ER -