Plain Language, Easy English, and Easy Read

If you have ever spent an afternoon writing a participant information sheet and wondered whether you are pitching it at the right level, you are not alone. The terms "Plain English," "Easy English," and "Easy Read" are often used interchangeably, but they describe genuinely different approaches. Getting the distinction right is not just good practice — it is part of your ethical obligations under the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (National Statement). This post unpacks the differences, helps you decide which approach suits your participants, and gives you practical tools to check your work.

Why this matters under the National Statement

The National Statement is clear on this point. Paragraph 2.2.3 states that participant information "must be presented in ways suitable to each participant." That requirement sits alongside paragraph 5.3.6, which asks evaluators and researchers to consider factors including:

• the mode of communication (speech, writing, visual, or a combination); 
• the need for accurate translation into a participant's first language or dialect; 
• the participant's cultural background; 
• their educational background and level of literacy and numeracy; 
• their age and maturity; and 
• any visual, hearing, or communication impairment.

Taken together, these paragraphs describe an obligation that is specific, not general. It is not enough to write "clearly." The question is whether your materials are accessible to the actual people you are recruiting.

This obligation runs in a second direction as well. Paragraph 3.1.1 of the National Statement asks applicants to describe their project "in plain language" when submitting for ethics review. At Iris Ethics, we encourage applicants to write project plans and supporting materials in plain language from the start, not only because it helps our committee understand what you are proposing, but because clear, well-written project documentation supports sign-off from senior leadership, helps new team members get up to speed quickly, and makes your project easier to communicate to stakeholders over its life. Plain language is not just a courtesy to reviewers; it is good project management.

The three approaches: what they are and when to use them

Plain English

Plain English is the standard most evaluators and researchers should be aiming for with the majority of their materials. It means writing in everyday language, keeping sentences reasonably short, avoiding jargon, and structuring information so readers can find what they need. Plain English does not mean dumbing things down, it means being direct and clear.

In practice, a Plain English participant information sheet for a policy evaluation or social research project will:

• Use active voice rather than passive constructions ("We will interview you" rather than "Participants will be interviewed")
• Explain technical terms in plain language the first time they appear
• Use short paragraphs and headings to break up text
• Avoid acronyms unless they are explained

Plain English is appropriate for general population samples, professional participants (such as service providers or program staff), and most online survey panels where you have no specific indication that participants have lower literacy needs.

Easy English

Easy English takes Plain English further. It targets readers with lower literacy levels, including people with mild to moderate intellectual disability, people with low formal education, and people for whom English is a second or third language. Easy English uses:

• Very short sentences (typically one idea per sentence)
• Simple, common vocabulary
• Concrete rather than abstract language
• Generous white space and a larger font size
• Supportive images (photographs or simple illustrations) to reinforce meaning alongside the text

Easy English is distinct from Plain English in that it actively restructures content. It is not just edited plain language, it is a different document with a different architecture.

When would you need Easy English in evaluation and research contexts? Examples might include:

• A community wellbeing survey targeting residents of supported accommodation services
• Interviews as part of a program evaluation with service users who have intellectual disability 
• Market research exploring experiences of people with low formal education in a particular community

Easy English materials should ideally be tested with members of your target group before you use them. It is not simply a matter of rewriting. A document that reads well in an office may still be confusing to someone with limited literacy unless it has been checked with representative readers.

Easy Read

Easy Read is a specific format most commonly associated with communication for people with intellectual disability. It follows a structured set of conventions: one idea per sentence, one sentence per line, and an image alongside every piece of text. The images are often purpose-designed symbols or photographs chosen to represent each concept precisely.

Easy Read materials are a specialised product. Developing them well requires expertise in the format, experience with the audience, and, ideally, co-production with people with intellectual disability. We are not experts in Easy Read production, and we would encourage evaluators and researchers whose work involves this audience to engage specialists. Organisations such as Scope Australia and Inclusion Australia have resources and services in this space.

If your project involves participants who would benefit from Easy Read materials, flag this clearly in your ethics application and describe how you will engage specialist expertise to develop them.

Measuring readability: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

Readability formulas are useful tools for checking your work. They are not a substitute for plain language skills, but a rough calibration check. The most commonly used formula in Australian government and research contexts is the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, which estimates the school grade level a reader would need to understand a piece of text. A score of 8 corresponds roughly to Year 8 reading level; a score of 12 corresponds to Year 12.

As a practical reference point, the NSW Government recommends writing content at Grade Level 9 or below for general audiences, noting that this corresponds to the reading comprehension of a 14-15 year old. Remember that 96% of people in NSW have completed Year 9 or higher. For content on complex topics, a Grade Level of 7-8 is recommended, which further aligns with WCAG 2.1 accessibility criterion 3.1.5.

For most general population participant information sheets and survey instruments in social research, market research, and evaluation contexts, Grade Level 8 is a sensible target. If you are developing materials for lower-literacy audiences, aim for Grade Level 5-6. Easy English materials will typically sit at Grade Level 3-4 or lower.

Note that readability scores are a starting point, not a verdict. A short sentence full of technical terms may score well on readability formulas but still be opaque to participants. Conversely, a longer sentence with familiar vocabulary may be clearer than the score suggests. Use the score as one input alongside review by colleagues or, where possible, by members of your target audience.

How to check readability in Microsoft Word

Microsoft Word has a built-in Flesch-Kincaid checker that most people have never turned on. Here is how to find it:

1. Open File > Options (on Mac: Word > Preferences)
2. Select Proofing
3. Under "When correcting spelling and grammar in Word," check the box labelled "Show readability statistics"
4. Select OK
5. Run a spell check on your document (Review > Spelling & Grammar, or press F7)
6. When the spell check completes, Word will display a readability statistics box. Look for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level figure at the bottom

A few practical notes: the checker works on the text in your document, so make sure you are checking the final version. Headers, table cells, and text boxes may or may not be included depending on your document structure; if in doubt, paste your main body text into a plain document and check it separately.

Using a large language model to check and revise your materials

If you have access to a secure instance of a frontier AI model (one that does not train on your inputs and is approved for use with project data under your organisation's data governance arrangements), or a small language model running locally on your machine, you can use a prompt like the following to check and revise your participant-facing materials.

The prompt below is designed to work with Plain English and Easy English revision tasks, grounded in Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level targets:

Prompt:

You are a plain language editor. Your task is to revise the text I provide so that it is appropriate for the target reading level specified below.

Target reading level: [specify: e.g., Grade Level 8 for general population / Grade Level 5 for lower literacy / Grade Level 3–4 for Easy English]

Guiding principles:

• Use short sentences. Aim for one main idea per sentence.
• Use everyday vocabulary. Where a technical term is unavoidable, explain it in plain language immediately.
• Use active voice. Write "We will contact you" not "You will be contacted."
• Avoid jargon, acronyms (unless explained), and abstract language.
• Keep paragraphs short — no more than 3-4 sentences.
• Do not change the meaning or omit important information. If you are unsure whether content can be simplified without changing the meaning, flag it with [CHECK].

For Easy English (Grade Level 3–4) also apply:

• One sentence per line.
• Use concrete, specific words. Replace "accommodation" with "where you live," "remuneration" with "pay," and so on.
• Remove all passive constructions.
• Flag any concepts that would benefit from a supporting image with [IMAGE NEEDED: description].

After revising the text, estimate the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of your revision and note whether it meets the target.

Here is the text to revise: [paste your text here]

A note on using AI tools for this purpose: a well-structured prompt will produce a useful first draft, but you should review the output carefully. AI models can introduce errors, change meaning in subtle ways, or miss contextual nuance that a human reviewer would catch. Treat AI-assisted revision as one step in your process, not the final word. And regardless of which tool you use, for materials targeting low-literacy or Easy English audiences, testing with representative readers remains the gold standard.

A note on translation

The National Statement (paragraph 5.3.6(b)) also asks evaluators and researchers to consider the need for translation of participant materials into participants' first language or dialect. Plain language in English does not substitute for accurate translation where participants are not English speakers. If your project involves CALD communities, translation by a qualified human translator — not machine translation alone — is the appropriate approach, and this should be reflected in your ethics application.

Summary

Choosing the right communication approach for your participant materials is an ethical obligation, not a stylistic preference. The National Statement requires that information be presented in ways suitable to each participant, and that means thinking carefully about who you are recruiting and what they need to make an informed decision about participating.

As a starting point:

• Plain English (Grade Level 8 or below) is the baseline for most general population evaluation and research materials.
• Easy English (Grade Level 3-6) is appropriate for participants with lower literacy, and should be tested with representative readers.
• Easy Read involves specialist conventions and should be developed with expert support, particularly for projects involving participants with intellectual disability.

Readability checking via Microsoft Word or a well-designed AI prompt is a practical and accessible way to calibrate your materials before submission. And remember: clear writing is not only good for participants. It benefits your ethics application, your project team, and everyone who needs to understand what your project is actually about.

Have questions about how to structure participant-facing materials for ethics review? Get in touch with the Iris Ethics team.

Related resources

• Information required
• General consent requirements
• Consent checklist
• People with disability or illness (NS 4.5)

Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!

AI Disclosure: Initial drafts of the content for this article were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.