Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices
- PMID: 32240246
- PMCID: PMC7117690
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231160
Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices
Abstract
Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.
Conflict of interest statement
The Journal of Social and Political Psychology is published on the PsychOpen GOLD platform operated by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID). All authors of this manuscript are employees of ZPID, a public research support organization. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Similar articles
-
What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.Patient. 2023 Jan;16(1):31-42. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00606-7. Epub 2022 Oct 27. Patient. 2023. PMID: 36301440 Free PMC article.
-
Are plain language summaries more readable than scientific abstracts? Evidence from six biomedical and life sciences journals.Public Underst Sci. 2025 Jan;34(1):114-126. doi: 10.1177/09636625241252565. Epub 2024 May 24. Public Underst Sci. 2025. PMID: 38783772
-
Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study.J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e22122. doi: 10.2196/22122. J Med Internet Res. 2022. PMID: 35014966 Free PMC article.
-
Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019. PMID: 30953453 Free PMC article.
-
Are plain-language summaries included in published reports of evidence about physiotherapy interventions? Analysis of 4421 randomised trials, systematic reviews and guidelines on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).Physiotherapy. 2019 Sep;105(3):354-361. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2018.11.003. Epub 2018 Nov 15. Physiotherapy. 2019. PMID: 30876718 Review.
Cited by
-
Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review.Patient. 2024 Sep;17(5):493-518. doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00700-y. Epub 2024 Jun 15. Patient. 2024. PMID: 38878237 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing public perception of a sand fly biting study on the pathway to a controlled human infection model for cutaneous leishmaniasis.Res Involv Engagem. 2021 May 30;7(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00277-y. Res Involv Engagem. 2021. PMID: 34053461 Free PMC article.
-
To Have the Best Interest at Heart: Analyzing the Match Between Laypersons' Interests and Publication Activity in Psychology.Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 2;13:899430. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899430. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2022. PMID: 35719558 Free PMC article.
-
Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study.Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 12;14(1):6016. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56727-6. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38472285 Free PMC article.
-
From complexity to clarity: How AI enhances perceptions of scientists and the public's understanding of science.PNAS Nexus. 2024 Sep 6;3(9):pgae387. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae387. eCollection 2024 Sep. PNAS Nexus. 2024. PMID: 39290437 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Kaslow NJ. Translating psychological science to the public. American Psychologist. 2015;70(5): 361–371.
-
- Maeseele P. On media and science in late modern societies In: Cohen EL, ed. Communication Yearbook 37. New York: Routledge; 2013. pp. 181–208.
-
- Snyderman M, Rothman S. The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1988.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources