This tool will give you lots of lovely readability scores, telling you how easy the text you enter is to read. Simply enter the text you wish to check into the box below, and your scores will be calculated. This tool is powered by the open source project PHP Text Statistics, originally released on this site in July 2004 and updated and released under a New BSD License in August 2008.
Check Text Readability
A tool to give an indication of how easy text is to read, using the Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning-Fog, Coleman-Liau, SMOG and Automated Readability scoring systems.
Check Text Readability was posted on 07 July 2004 and has been tagged with design, language, literature, readability, reference, resources, tool, tools, usability, webdesign and writing. Tweet This!
72 Comments
hi! neat script! the layout seems to be broken, though. I get loads of whitespace between the input box of the script and your last paragraph.
on a sidenote, the comment form looks a bit weird as well -- but it's cool :-) // rck
#1, rck, Austria, 2 October 2004. Reply to this.
I find it really pointless.
#2, Adam Bouskila, Canada, 5 June 2005. Reply to this.
Fair enough, Adam. Constructive criticism would have been more intelligent and maybe even helpful, but as you've gone down the "pointless confrontational comment" route, I'll reply to what little you've said.
As I said in the article about this, text readability is very difficult to gauge programatically (at least to any degree of accuracy). However, this type of quick test can help to point out to a writer when they are over-complicating things. Some of us are not lucky enough to always write perfectly, and need a little help making sure what we post to the web is easy to read.
#3, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 5 June 2005. Reply to this.
Nice Script Dave. Been looking for something similar for UK gove websites I work for.
BTW your intro text to the script didn't score very well, whereas the previous posters 'I find it really pointless' probably did very well... which i find strangely humourous... any how respect to you again, and where can i get my hands on this script? Theres some councilspeak out there I gotta deal with.
Paul
#4, Paulg, France, 29 July 2005. Reply to this.
very helpful. I am on Linux and their is no feasible readbility checker for me.
It always tells me when something I write is crap (of course I always have a high ego)
#5, ball, Canada, 12 August 2005. Reply to this.
oops...that should be "THERE", sorry
#6, ball, Canada, 12 August 2005. Reply to this.
Really nice script - I've just linked it in a post, along with another tool (which makes use of some other methods to evaluate texts in Spanish, Swedish, French, ...; still no Portuguese ;) ).
Just one correction: it's the Gunning-*Fog* Index. :)
#7, João Craveiro, Portugal, 27 September 2005. Reply to this.
Oops! Thanks, João, that's now been corrected.
#8, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 28 September 2005. Reply to this.
Handy script! I am working towards a MS degree and my assugnment was just graded using the Flescher Readability score method. I ran the same text through your script which scored rather high, i.e., non-readable for the average reader (9th greade level). I tried rewriting the exercise to see what it took to get a 9th grade level. To my surprise, I could only get it down to 11th grade level and it already read like some moron had written it (lol). Are you sure the script is correct? How do you calculate the number of syllables per word?
Even if not totally accurate, I find the script quite useful. Thanks for providing it.
#9, Joe, United States, 12 October 2005. Reply to this.
Oops, assugnment = assignment
#10, Joe, United States, 12 October 2005. Reply to this.
Hi Joe. It's not 100% accurate but it is pretty damn close. The problem is programatically working out the number of syllables in a word, which is tricky.
The trick is to write well, but still have good readability. That's an art!
#11, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 12 October 2005. Reply to this.
Dave, what is the exact method you use to calculate the number of syllables?
(yes, I do realize this post is over a year old)
#12, Anonymous, United States, 18 October 2005. Reply to this.
The article links through to the functions and methods used to calculate readability, including syllable number calculations.
#13, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 19 October 2005. Reply to this.
<http://www.addedbytes.com/resources/readability-score/> nav column renders wrong in Explorer 6.0 SP2, ;-(
VG in other browsers.
CONGRATULATIONS for the site
#14, gregtower@gmail.com, Spain, 20 October 2005. Reply to this.
Its a great tool that I can't stop using. Have found another tool at http://resources.aellalei.com/writer/sample.php Only, I keep wondering why the results are that different. Actually, what would be interesting to know is how that model works. Did you check it against your model?
#15, Dezso Papp, Hungary, 12 November 2005. Reply to this.
I found the results for the Fog index to be different than my own calculations, but then again I was discounting some words myself that I didn't think should be included - e.g place names.
Still strange though.
#16, Dan, United Kingdom, 20 January 2006. Reply to this.
As Dezso Papp said, the Obsidian (aellalei) readability analysis gives very different results (e.g., your site gives my text a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 6; theirs, a 3.96). Also, I would enjoy a tool that uses the Powers-Sumner-Kearl formula. Thanks.
#17, Tyler, United States, 6 February 2006. Reply to this.
More than likely the discrepancy is down to the calculation of the number of syllables in text, which isn't exact. It's pretty good, but tricky to get it 100% accurate.
#18, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 6 February 2006. Reply to this.
Great stuff. We do some statistical investigations using these measures as part of the Year 6 maths course at my school, and this is going to save so much time. Many thanks for making this public.
#19, Miles Berry, United Kingdom, 15 March 2006. Reply to this.
I am giving a presentation tomorrow on leveled reading. The best part of the presentation will be when I tell the class that at www.addedbytes.com they can find a handy little readability tool. School should involve more whisky.
#20, Carolyn Hillman, United States, 11 June 2006. Reply to this.
Great tool. I'm an editor for a childern's educatonal publisher. I am beginning work on a new series of maths literacy books. I will be using your site regularly to check manuscripts.
#21, Ratu Mataira, New Zealand, 13 June 2006. Reply to this.
Great tool! I use the openoffice.org work suite (website posted as homepage) . I think it's an excellent alternative to MS Office. However, one of the only features the word processor, writer, doesn't have is the is the ability to get stats like grade level and reading ease. This tool solves that little problem. Though if i may make a suggestion, it'd be great if the average sentences per paragraph was included in the notes. Now if only OpenOffice added the ability to drag and drop text, it'd be without a shadow of a doubt the superior office suite.
#22, ndesi62, United States, 25 June 2006. Reply to this.
I absolutely love this tool. I am working on my MA and I use this for every paper I write. I always want to make sure I am writing graduate level work. Thank You!
#23, Anonymous, United States, 31 July 2006. Reply to this.
I really like this script and I see where the problems arrise from the syllable count. If you run the count_syllables() function by itself and then manually count the number of syllables the function usually returns a higher value. There isn't a sufficient rule for words that end in the letter "e". Here are a few 1 syllable words that the function counts as 2:
* have
* house
* hive
* base
* live
* leave
* brave
Here are a few 2 syllable words that the function counts as 2:
* behave
* release
* combine
Additionally, there are a few words in English (At least American English) that look very much like two syllables but are only one like the following:
* lived
* lives
* cares
* rates
Now for the real issue, we have all of those wordes the end with an "e" that should be counted a 1 syllable but then we have others that are supposed to be 2 syllables like the following:
* mile
* tile
* aisle
* isle
* style
One last thought, 'ses and 'ces!
bases and faces are both 2 syllable words but lives and cares are only one syllable.
Any ideas of how we might write a few more rules for these types of words?
Thanks.
#24, vujsa, United States, 24 September 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Vujsa,
There are plenty of words that are exceptions to the rules in the function - it's English, after all. Many of the words you mention are tricky ones to add rules for - in many ways, better to hard-code exceptions into to the function to handle these.
#25, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 24 September 2006. Reply to this.
Hey dave,
Thanks for the reply. The only reason I bring up this particular issue is doue to the very large number of words in English that end with an 'e'. I don't think that it is important to try to come up with rules for every single situation that a word ends with "e" but it would be nice to get the top 80% which is about what is being missed. The other 20% would work isself out in the averages much like your name:
Dave = 2 syllables
Child = 1 syllable
3 syllables is correct but that was because the script got lucky. ;)
But all things considered, I think that the readability scripts you have put together work very well. There only real weakness from what I can tell is the syllable rocognition system which is difficult to fix since in English, the exception is the rule. lol
I was just wondering if anyone has considered expanding the list of rules to account for a greater number of situations.
vujsa
#26, vujsa, United States, 24 September 2006. Reply to this.
I need something just like this for school when writing quizzes for Reading Counts. We don't have Internet at our school. Is there a "portable" version of this that I can install on my Library computer?
#27, s.kensler@gmail.com, United States, 21 October 2006. Reply to this.
Is there a "portable" version of this that I can install on my Library computer?
-----
Assuming you have MS Office on your computer, this scale as well as many others can be activated via "Tools > Options > Spelling & Grammer > Readability Statistics".
#28, jwehr, United States, 22 December 2006. Reply to this.
hey this helped out loads as a student wanting to know if what i was writing was going to be too complicated for examiners it especially helped because i tend to write long and complicated essays that can get out of hand and i dont tend to notice.
so thanks dave and keep up the great work
#29, alex, United Kingdom, 22 January 2007. Reply to this.
Excellent tool for nerds. I completely dig it. From a writing perspective, it is difficult to understand how to use the information. E.G. reading level 11.9 readability 42. Low readability, but snobbish M.B.A. profs like it, so who is to say?
#30, DeadMonikor, United States, 23 January 2007. Reply to this.
Maybe someone else finds the readability scale pointless, but I find it useful. I use it to get a rough idea of whether or not I'm keeping what I write simple.
#31, tinyjab, Unknown, 27 February 2007. Reply to this.
Your layouts borked. Validation might help: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addedbytes.com%2Fresources%2Freadability-score%2F
Nice idea though.
#32, James, Unknown, 9 March 2007. Reply to this.
Thanks for a great tool and a fun website.
I'd like to add a request: could the results include Total # of Words? And while I'm asking, how about a recommended minimum text to submit?
I think some of my students are trying to use samples that are too small. Thanks again.
#33, Mae East, United States, 14 March 2007. Reply to this.
Excllent tool,now bookmarked as a study aid. Nice to know I'm writing at Post-grad level!
Would never 'ave thunk it....
#34, Simon, United Kingdom, 29 April 2007. Reply to this.
Just need a clarification - If I have s script which contains Tables,Tabular tags as well as Text,how the scores will be computed.whether it ignores or considers those Tables and tags.
#35, Ravi, India, 25 June 2007. Reply to this.
How does your calcualtion differ from the Readibility and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests in Tools in Microsoft word. The Grade level, words per sentence and readibility levels differ.
#36, Jane, New Zealand, 1 August 2007. Reply to this.
Hi Jane.
In short, I don't know. I don't have access to Microsoft's source code so can't tell you how they calculate these scores. Differences, though, are likely to be caused primarily by differences in the function that calculates the number of syllables in a word.
#37, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 1 August 2007. Reply to this.
its nice but i wish you include readability of a paragraph using gunning fog index.thanks..
#38, nora pinkihan, Unknown, 6 December 2007. Reply to this.
I think I found why vujsa was having problems with the syllable count.
In the "count_syllables" function there is two lists of syllables. One for adding to the count, one for subtracting.
If you look at the values in those lists, they appear to be Regular Expressions.
However the function those values are being passed too "strpos" takes a literal string argument, not a regular expression.
I'm getting expected results for syllables using the following loops instead of the "strpos" loops in that function.
foreach ($subsyl as &$syl) {
$syllables -= preg_match('~'.$syl.'~', $word);
}
foreach ($addsyl as &$syl) {
$syllables += preg_match('~'.$syl.'~', $word);
}
Note that in PHP < 5 "as &$syl" needs to be "as $syl" because PHP < 5 doesn't support byref in foreach loops.
#39, Joe Kovar, Unknown, 14 December 2007. Reply to this.
Hi! Using the code on the two pages linked from here (copy paste, even), I get different results for the Gunning-Fog Index. Did you change something in your live code but not the example? Regardless -- great code! Thanks for sharing.
#40, Josh, Unknown, 27 March 2008. Reply to this.
I have question about the constant in readability formula. Where they come from?
Like Flesch readability formula:
ReadingEase = 206.835? (1.015 * ASL) ? (0.846 *AWL)
Also, Can we apply it to other language like French ?
#41, Readability Formula Constants, Unknown, 3 April 2008. Reply to this.
I am using a couple of other sites as well to decide the readability level (mainly FK) of several sites am using for my research. The problem is addedbytes, juicystudio, and readability.info, all three show three different grades for the same text. Is there any way I can justify this in my research? And which one shall I consider?
#42, multiple readability sites, Unknown, 11 June 2008. Reply to this.
Joe: Well spotted. I've corrected that and added in the code you posted. Thanks.
#43, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 11 June 2008. Reply to this.
Dave,
I have a question. I am trying to find the readability of questions ona reading test. I am typing each writing prompt into readability checkers such as yours. I get a different level for the Flesch Kincaid and Gunning-Fog depending on the checker I use. There are trends that show a common relationship among the increasing and decreasing difficulties from one question to another, but each question checks in at a different level. Can you explain why this may be?
#44, sheri, United States, 20 July 2008. Reply to this.
Love the new design. I noticed after your site scores the text the hints next to the scores are missing, the ones that hinted where you would want the score to be around. Is there a reason you took them off? Is it possible to get those back, it helps me know how close I was.
#45, Paco, United States, 18 August 2008. Reply to this.
sheri: Counting syllables programatically is tricky, and that is likely to be the pain cause of discrepancies. That's why the code behind this tool has a large set of tests to check syllable counting.
Paco: Glad you like the design. The hints are missing as I'm working on improving the presentation of the results, and working on finding good quality information on what the optimal scores actually are. Most results (except Reading Ease) are, I believe, based on US grade levels.
#46, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 19 August 2008. Reply to this.
Great to see this tool still available online.
Only minor glitch I've encountered - when assessing copy, I get "Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease" twice - should the lower number be the Grade?
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
#47, Tony, Canada, 19 August 2008. Reply to this.
Dave or anyone with an answer; I just have 2 questions:
1. Where can I find the explanation of the different scores. I know what the FK Readability scores mean but what is the Gunnig Fog and the others listed on your readability scores?
2. Also, could anyone explain how an FK Reading Ease score of 31 means college graduate but the Grade Level score is still 12?
Thanks for this gadget, I am beginning to learn how to use the APA writing format and tools like this have really helped me adjust my writing skills.
#48, Monica, Unknown, 20 August 2008. Reply to this.
Very cool! I teach technical writing to high school students and one lesson is on calculating readability. They just love to pack a paragraph full of jargon and say, "Hey, it sounds technical!" This will save me from bashing my head against that bit of concrete that block my students' understanding. We'll use this in class this fall. Thanks!
#49, Rob, United States, 20 August 2008. Reply to this.
I think it is great that you displayed so many different readability formulas. I am a long time teacher and I use leveled text with students. I decided to compare the readabilities here with text that had been leveled using Reading Recovery, IRI, and F&P materials that have been leveled by having students read the text. I knew the levels of the text I put in. What this showed me was that none of the readability formulas is accurate all of the time because a large part of reading depends on the readers interaction with the text. Flesh-Kincaid was accurate 50% of the time and when it is off it is usually but not always high; SMOG was accurate about 40% of the time for all but two of the 40 samples I used it was high when it was off; The Gunning and Coleman indexes were accurate 0% of the time generally they were 3-4 years high but sometimes as much as 7 years high and then on a couple of occasions low; The automated readibility was accurate 50% of the time on text over 4th grade when it was not accurate it was equally incorrect on the high side half the time and the low side half the time. On text below 4th grade reading level it was only accurate 5% of the time and generally high.
My suggestion to anyone leveling text is that you may be able to use an index of this nature to get an apporximate level - especially on text at a 4th grade level or above, but then you really need to have real people whose reading level is known read the text you are checking to get an accurate level. it is certainly more work but the only way to really make sure that what you are writing will fit your audience. If you are a teacher trying to level a text the same is true, this can give you an approximate level, but then you have to check the text against your students actual reaing levels.
By the way on when the site reports the results it says Flesh-Kincaid Reading ease for the reading ease % and then it says Flesh -Kincaid Reading Ease again when it should just say Flesh-Kincaid level or Flesh-Kincaid Score.
#50, Theresa, United States, 14 September 2008. Reply to this.
Something is wrong in the output:
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 58.9 (?)
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 10.9 (?)
I think the correct output is:
Flesch Reading Ease: 58.9
Flesch-Kincaid Grade: 10.9
#51, Luis Cavique, Portugal, 30 September 2008. Reply to this.
It would be nice to include an option to ignore text in parentheses, such as with a research or academic paper. I do not believe the references are not relevant in calculating the readability (e.g. Raven, 2008) .
#52, Daniel, Japan, 21 October 2008. Reply to this.
Thanks for a great tool.
It's a pity that it didn't work with a longer text (72 pages).
Is there a maximum that can be processed?
#53, Martin de Vos, Unknown, 14 November 2008. Reply to this.
Hello again. Well, after copying my earlier comment in the box, it came back with an Automated Readability Index of 0.1!
So it would take about 0.1 year to read the text. Funny score.
#54, Martin de Vos, Hengelo, Nederland, 14 November 2008. Reply to this.
i like it ..fast running......oops...tks @
#55, jasmine, Belgium, 28 December 2008. Reply to this.
great website! 3ks a lot!
I am a postgraduate student, majored in English. Now I am studying somerthing about readability. this really helps me a lot!!!:)
#56, Crstal, China, 29 December 2008. Reply to this.
NLPMax has probably one of the best fog index calculator in the internet. Check it out.
#57, Geraldo, United States, 30 December 2008. Reply to this.
Nice tool, especially because scores from several popular readability formulas are displayed at once. Two suggestions for presentation format: (1) have the statistical information display ahead of the inputed text to allow users to see these immediately without the need to scroll through the text; (2) In addition to individual scores, provide an average rating of the last five indexes, as they are all based on grade-level issues. The average may be a more powerful measure than any single index score. Thanks for producing this kind of online tool.
#58, Dee, United States, 13 January 2009. Reply to this.
As a certified reading teacher, I found this to be quite helpful when leveling a given text for students to read independently.
#59, Edd, United States, 20 January 2009. Reply to this.
I found this site through a search because I was concerned that some material that was labeled as Grade 1 level for ESL students seemed to me to be much higher. Of course, I was right. Thanks for site. I have passed it along to our junior high school ESL coordinator who also thinks it's great.
#60, Maureen, Macao, 12 February 2009. Reply to this.
Is it common to get two different results from two sites? I copied and paste the same passage here, and at Edit Central (http://www.editcentral.com/gwt/com.editcentral.EC/EC.html) and got two different results.
#61, Elysia, Melbourne, Australia, 14 March 2009. Reply to this.
Does this apply to EFL/ESL reading texts, too?
Please help!
Faisal
#62, Anonymous, Saudi Arabia, 7 May 2009. Reply to this.
I liked the programmatic implementation of the syllable count instead of having a dictionary list. Good work, keep it up!
#63, Thiyagaraj Krishna, India, 11 August 2009. Reply to this.
I was wondering if there is a version of this (similiar to the one on Microsoft Word) availible for Open Office
#64, Abe, Unknown, 20 September 2009. Reply to this.
Hi Dave, pretty impressive, good work. how to get this tool? thanks.
warm regards
charles.
#65, Charles, India, 5 December 2009. Reply to this.
22 seems high for graduate level text.
I've copied in several articles from philosophy journals (which surely count as postgraduate reading), and their Average Grade Level (AGL) is in the mid-teens.
I even copied in a big chunk of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which is some of the most difficult prose I've ever encountered, and its AGL is about 17.
Wouldn't/Shouldn't grade 16 be considered senior-level college work, and 17 be graduate level?
#66, Ben Smith, 14 December 2009. Reply to this.
very precise and handy THANKS!!!!
#67, gh745 garret, 15 December 2009. Reply to this.
I am a copy editor and I don't see how this would be useful in my work without something like a grammar-checker that most word-processing programs have built in (which most copy editors and writers who know their grammar rules only find annoying). Syllable count is no real indication of readability. Correct usage and vocabulary is what imbues quality in writing. Now, if someone combined this or any other "readability" index with the grammar-checker, that would render a more accurate "grade level" for writers.
#68, Penniellen, United States, 15 December 2009. Reply to this.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
#69, po0hb34ry, United States, 16 December 2009. Reply to this.
Hi,
is the methodlogy only based on words count, so it works in every language or is there a semantic analysis part in it, so that your tool make only sense for english ?
regards
Frank
#70, Frank Simoni, Germany, 21 January 2010. Reply to this.
Personally I think it's hard to properly mathematise the English language, though I do find this tool (and the results) intriguing.
#71, Aaron, Australia, 1 February 2010. Reply to this.
I copy and pasted several content from wikipeda and checked but the grade still won't go over 9. And they say 22 is graduate level. This site is full of bullshit.
#72, Arslan, 3 February 2010. Reply to this.