Are Structured Abstracts Easier to Read Than Traditional Ones?

Abstract

Background: Structured abstracts (which contain sub-headings such as this one) have replaced traditional abstracts in most current medical journals. Evaluation studies have shown that such abstracts usually contain more information, are of a higher quality, and facilitate peer review.Aim: The aim of the studies reported here was to investigate an additional, but as yet unexamined, feature of structured abstracts ± namely whether or not they might be easier to read.Method: Eight studies were carried out. The first two compared the Flesch and the Gunning readability scores of traditional abstracts that were published in particular journals with those of structured ones that were published in the same journals after these journals had moved to using structured abstracts. The next two examined the Flesch and the Gunning readability scores of traditional and structured abstracts when they were written by the same authors. The next two examined the ability of readers to re-construct scrambled versions of abstracts to see if it was easier to reconstruct structured abstracts than it was to re-construct traditional ones. The last two examined readers' judgements of the readability of pairs of traditional and structured abstracts. Results:The first two studies showed that there were no significant differences in the readability scores of the earlier and the later abstracts. The next two studies showed, however, that when authors revised traditional abstracts to produce structured versions then the structured abstracts had higher readability scores. The next two studies showed that when readers were asked to re-sequence sentences taken from traditional and structured abstracts, they sometimes found this harder to do with traditional abstracts. The last two studies showed that readers rated structured abstracts more readable than traditional ones.Conclusions: These studies suggest that structured abstracts may be easier to read than traditional ones ± sometimes! Conclusions : Ces e tudes suggeÁ rent que les re sume s structure s peuvent tre plus faciles aÁ lire que des re sume s traditionnels ± parfois!

Presenting software engineering results using structured abstracts: a randomised experiment

“…We also performed some initial analysis at this stage, in that values of the Flesch Reading Ease measure and Gunning Fog Index were recorded for each document (Flesch 1948;Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test 2006;Automated Readability Index 2006). While in (Hartley and Sydes 1997) the authors note that these metrics ignore many factors, they do also observe that when applied to two versions of the same abstract then the results should provide some indication of whether or not one version might be easier to read than the other. The length of each index (in words) was also recorded.…”

An investigation of use case quality in a large safety-critical software development project

“…It has been found that structured abstracts are of higher quality than traditional, unstructured abstracts, but that they are longer. They are more readable and more informative, their contents can be assessed quicker and more easily, they are easier to search and recall, and they facilitate peer review [12,18,19,21].…”

Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia

“…However, while some research has found that this type of scaffold fosters knowledge development (e.g., Jonassen et al 1986;Hartley and Sydes 1997), other research has found limited benefit of providing students with guiding questions during learning with hypermedia. For example, Azevedo and colleagues (2005) found that young students who received conceptual scaffolding, in the form of 10 domain specific questions designed to guide their learning about the circulatory system, demonstrated lower conceptual learning gains from pre-to post-test and used fewer key SRL processes during learning than students who did not receive scaffolding.…”