1. Testing plain
language texts
with your
target
audience
by Debra Huron
© Debra Isabel Huron 2012

2. What kinds of plain
language texts do you
want to test?
They could be:
• information leaflets
• consent forms
• guidebooks, and
• booklets.
You could also test Web content.

3. The first thing you
need to know
. . . is that you are testing
the text, not the people.

4. What do you expect
adults
to do when they
read what you
have written?

5. Most readers want
and need to . . .
read
understand, and
act on information.

6. Case study of testing
Target audience:
pregnant women
served by a public
health unit in
southern Ontario,
Canada.
Here is the cover of the booklet
that was tested. Only 7 of 30
pages of text were tested by
respondents.

7. Our goal was to find out whether
a plain language text met the
needs of the target audience.
The full process took
about six weeks.
Public health nurses
were trained to do the
one-on-one interviews
with respondents.

8. Respondents were asked to:
• Participate in the materials testing.
• Read seven (7) pages from the
booklet as many times as they
wished during a two-week period.
• Agree to an interview time when a
public health nurse would deliver
the oral interview in their home.
• Attend the interview.
Respondents were not paid to be part of the
testing. In other testing I have
done, respondents were paid a small fee, in

9. Public health nurses had to:
• Read a short guide prepared by the
consultant.
• Participate in a question-and-answer
conference call with the consultant
hired by the Health Unit.
• Coordinate the relationship with
their respondent(s) by setting up a
time for each interview.
• Conduct the interview using
guidelines provided by the
consultant.
I was “the consultant.”

10. My role as a consultant was to:
• direct the project,
• prepare the interview sheets,
• analyze results, and
• write a report on the results.
The health unit wanted to document the
process and results as a guide for use
in future testing.

11. A key feature of the project was
that the nurses conducted all
interviews one-on-one, at home,
with the respondents.
In other testing
projects, I have
conducted interviews
by phone.

12. Why not do group interviews?
Reading is a solitary Group dynamics
activity and text make it hard for
comprehension is someone to say
personal. they have NOT
understood
something.
Respondents
must feel safe;
they are not
being tested,
the text is.

13. The interviews I designed aimed
to test the target audience’s
comprehension of:
• vocabulary
• important concepts in the booklet.
The resource contained sidebars with
definitions of important terms. Another goal
was to test comprehension of a sample of
these definitions.

14. Example of a vocabulary question
from the interview sheet:
“What does urinalysis mean?”
This term was NOT defined in a margin definition.
To answer the question correctly, respondents needed to reply that
urinalysis is
a) A prenatal test
b) A test that reveals bladder or kidney problems.
The first piece of information appears as a heading on a page entitled
“Common Prenatal Tests.” The second piece of information appears as
the last item on the same page, under the sub-heading “Urinalysis.”

15. Example of a content question
from the interview sheet:
“Based on your reading of the
text, is nail polish remover a
pesticide?”
To answer correctly, respondents needed to
cross reference two pieces of information:
1) separate definitions of pesticides and
solvents and 2) a list of various types of
solvents. These pieces of information appeared
in different places on the same page.
Further, the reader needed to eliminate nail
polish as an example of a pesticide to answer
the question correctly.

16. Sample results
Question Correct responses
What is urinalysis? 100%
Is nail polish remover a 75%
pesticide?”
The interviews were conducted like an open book exam, in
that respondents were not expected to rely on memory to
answer the questions. In fact, interviewers encouraged the
respondents to have the 7 pages that were being tested
on hand and to allow respondents as much time as they
needed to find the correct answer on the pertinent page.

17. Overall results from this case
study:
• 85% of respondents comprehended
key vocabulary and basic terminology
• 83% of respondents comprehended
key messages
• Respondents said the design and
layout of the handbook met their
needs.

18. Results that pertain to Definitions
• 100% of respondents said
they read the Definitions
along the side of the page.
• 100% of respondents said
the definitions helped them
understand other parts of
the booklet.
• 37% said there were enough
definitions.
• 50% said there were not
enough definitions.
• Only 12.5% said there were
too many definitions.

19. Conclusions
1. Interview results showed a good match between the
reading abilities of respondents and the way the
handbook text was written. In other words, the
printed material met the needs of the target
audience.
2. Because respondents made good use of the sidebar
Definitions and because some respondents
identified terms that they wished had been defined
(but were not), more Definitions could have been
included in the handbook.

20. Recommendations
“If a further plain language review is to be
done, the focus of such a review should be in
these areas:
 Add more sidebar Definitions so that all
medical terms in the text are clearly defined (or
deleted should the Health Unit decide they do
not need to be defined)
 Ensure that specific comments from
respondents and from the analysis of interview
results be considered and addressed.”

21. In case you were
wondering . . .
• The sample size was small: about 15 respondents.
• The interview guide consisted of 22 questions (not
including questions on design/layout.)
• Interviews took place over a two-week period in
respondents’ homes. (Public health nurses were
already familiar with respondents and had visited them
at home.) …. more details

22. In case you were
wondering . . .
• Questions on design and layout
provided a “breather” for respondents, half way
through the interview. We did not really need to know
whether respondents liked the colours or font chosen; we
knew the design was appropriate.
• Respondents had a strong sense that they were
helping the health unit improve the effectiveness of this
and future resources. This motivation—doing
something for the greater good—reduced the need to
offer respondents a cash incentive, which is often done
and is appropriate when doing testing of this work.

23. Are you interested in reading
another case study?
Go to http://www.clarity-
international.net/pastjournals.html
and click on Issue 51. A PDF will
download. My article is on page 24 and
relates to testing of a consumer
magazine by adult learners in Canada
(May 2004).

24. Since 1997, I have been helping
healthcare, government, and non-profit
professionals communicate more clearly.
I offer:
 writing
 editing, and
 training in plain
language writing.
Learn more at
www.debrahuron.com