The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users

Reports of forensic comparison of glass

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Scientific language contains features that may impede understanding for non-scientists. Forensic scientists' written reports are read by police, lawyers, and judges, and thus assessment of readability is warranted. Past studies of readability differed in background theory and approach, but analysed one or more of: content and sequence; language; and format. Using a holistic approach, we assessed the readability of expert reports (n=78) of forensic glass comparison from 7 Australian jurisdictions. Two main audiences for reports were relevant: police and the courts. Reports for police were presented either as a completed form or as a brief legal-style report. Reports for court were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles, with content and formatting features supporting these distinctions. Some jurisdictions prepared a single report to satisfy both the courts and police. In general, item list, analytical techniques, results, notes on interpretation, and conclusions were included in reports of all types. However, some reports omitted analytical techniques, and results and conclusions were sometimes combined. According to Flesch Reading Ease, language was difficult, with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of university undergraduate. Sentences were long and contained undefined specialist terms. Information content per clause (lexical density), was typically high, as for other scientific texts. Uncertainty was expressed differently by jurisdiction. Reports from most jurisdictions were cluttered in appearance, with single-line spacing, narrow margins, and gridlines in tables. Simple suggestions, based on theory and past research, are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of expert reports for non-scientists.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)54-66
Number of pages13
JournalForensic Science International
Volume236
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Police
Glass
Language
Lawyers
Uncertainty
Reading
Research

Cite this

Howes, Loene ; Kirkbride, Paul ; KELTY, Sally ; Julian, Roberta ; Kemp, Nenagh. / The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users : Reports of forensic comparison of glass. In: Forensic Science International. 2014 ; Vol. 236. pp. 54-66.
@article{1c990ef48f8b40c09a701fd1626e25f9,
title = "The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of forensic comparison of glass",
abstract = "Scientific language contains features that may impede understanding for non-scientists. Forensic scientists' written reports are read by police, lawyers, and judges, and thus assessment of readability is warranted. Past studies of readability differed in background theory and approach, but analysed one or more of: content and sequence; language; and format. Using a holistic approach, we assessed the readability of expert reports (n=78) of forensic glass comparison from 7 Australian jurisdictions. Two main audiences for reports were relevant: police and the courts. Reports for police were presented either as a completed form or as a brief legal-style report. Reports for court were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles, with content and formatting features supporting these distinctions. Some jurisdictions prepared a single report to satisfy both the courts and police. In general, item list, analytical techniques, results, notes on interpretation, and conclusions were included in reports of all types. However, some reports omitted analytical techniques, and results and conclusions were sometimes combined. According to Flesch Reading Ease, language was difficult, with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of university undergraduate. Sentences were long and contained undefined specialist terms. Information content per clause (lexical density), was typically high, as for other scientific texts. Uncertainty was expressed differently by jurisdiction. Reports from most jurisdictions were cluttered in appearance, with single-line spacing, narrow margins, and gridlines in tables. Simple suggestions, based on theory and past research, are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of expert reports for non-scientists.",
keywords = "Content analysis, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Forensic science, Glass comparison, Lexical density, Statement writing",
author = "Loene Howes and Paul Kirkbride and Sally KELTY and Roberta Julian and Nenagh Kemp",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031",
language = "English",
volume = "236",
pages = "54--66",
journal = "Forensic Science",
issn = "0379-0738",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users : Reports of forensic comparison of glass. / Howes, Loene; Kirkbride, Paul; KELTY, Sally; Julian, Roberta; Kemp, Nenagh.

In: Forensic Science International, Vol. 236, 2014, p. 54-66.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users

T2 - Reports of forensic comparison of glass

AU - Howes, Loene

AU - Kirkbride, Paul

AU - KELTY, Sally

AU - Julian, Roberta

AU - Kemp, Nenagh

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Scientific language contains features that may impede understanding for non-scientists. Forensic scientists' written reports are read by police, lawyers, and judges, and thus assessment of readability is warranted. Past studies of readability differed in background theory and approach, but analysed one or more of: content and sequence; language; and format. Using a holistic approach, we assessed the readability of expert reports (n=78) of forensic glass comparison from 7 Australian jurisdictions. Two main audiences for reports were relevant: police and the courts. Reports for police were presented either as a completed form or as a brief legal-style report. Reports for court were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles, with content and formatting features supporting these distinctions. Some jurisdictions prepared a single report to satisfy both the courts and police. In general, item list, analytical techniques, results, notes on interpretation, and conclusions were included in reports of all types. However, some reports omitted analytical techniques, and results and conclusions were sometimes combined. According to Flesch Reading Ease, language was difficult, with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of university undergraduate. Sentences were long and contained undefined specialist terms. Information content per clause (lexical density), was typically high, as for other scientific texts. Uncertainty was expressed differently by jurisdiction. Reports from most jurisdictions were cluttered in appearance, with single-line spacing, narrow margins, and gridlines in tables. Simple suggestions, based on theory and past research, are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of expert reports for non-scientists.

AB - Scientific language contains features that may impede understanding for non-scientists. Forensic scientists' written reports are read by police, lawyers, and judges, and thus assessment of readability is warranted. Past studies of readability differed in background theory and approach, but analysed one or more of: content and sequence; language; and format. Using a holistic approach, we assessed the readability of expert reports (n=78) of forensic glass comparison from 7 Australian jurisdictions. Two main audiences for reports were relevant: police and the courts. Reports for police were presented either as a completed form or as a brief legal-style report. Reports for court were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles, with content and formatting features supporting these distinctions. Some jurisdictions prepared a single report to satisfy both the courts and police. In general, item list, analytical techniques, results, notes on interpretation, and conclusions were included in reports of all types. However, some reports omitted analytical techniques, and results and conclusions were sometimes combined. According to Flesch Reading Ease, language was difficult, with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of university undergraduate. Sentences were long and contained undefined specialist terms. Information content per clause (lexical density), was typically high, as for other scientific texts. Uncertainty was expressed differently by jurisdiction. Reports from most jurisdictions were cluttered in appearance, with single-line spacing, narrow margins, and gridlines in tables. Simple suggestions, based on theory and past research, are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of expert reports for non-scientists.

KW - Content analysis

KW - Flesch-Kincaid grade level

KW - Forensic science

KW - Glass comparison

KW - Lexical density

KW - Statement writing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892869496&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031

M3 - Article

VL - 236

SP - 54

EP - 66

JO - Forensic Science

JF - Forensic Science

SN - 0379-0738

ER -