Literature DB >> 22835706

Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations.

Lih-Wern Wang1, Michael J Miller, Michael R Schmitt, Frances K Wen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Readability formulas are often used to guide the development and evaluation of literacy-sensitive written health information. However, readability formula results may vary considerably as a result of differences in software processing algorithms and how each formula is applied. These variations complicate interpretations of reading grade level estimates, particularly without a uniform guideline for applying and interpreting readability formulas.
OBJECTIVES: This research sought to (1) identify commonly used readability formulas reported in the health care literature, (2) demonstrate the use of the most commonly used readability formulas on written health information, (3) compare and contrast the differences when applying common readability formulas to identical selections of written health information, and (4) provide recommendations for choosing an appropriate readability formula for written health-related materials to optimize their use.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify the most commonly used readability formulas in health care literature. Each of the identified formulas was subsequently applied to word samples from 15 unique examples of written health information about the topic of depression and its treatment. Readability estimates from common readability formulas were compared based on text sample size, selection, formatting, software type, and/or hand calculations. Recommendations for their use were provided.
RESULTS: The Flesch-Kincaid formula was most commonly used (57.42%). Readability formulas demonstrated variability up to 5 reading grade levels on the same text. The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula performed most consistently. Depending on the text sample size, selection, formatting, software, and/or hand calculations, the individual readability formula estimated up to 6 reading grade levels of variability.
CONCLUSIONS: The SMOG formula appears best suited for health care applications because of its consistency of results, higher level of expected comprehension, use of more recent validation criteria for determining reading grade level estimates, and simplicity of use. To improve interpretation of readability results, reporting reading grade level estimates from any formula should be accompanied with information about word sample size, location of word sampling in the text, formatting, and method of calculation.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health literacy; Readability; Readability formula

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22835706     DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Social Adm Pharm        ISSN: 1551-7411


  55 in total

1.  Differences in perceived difficulty in print and online patient education materials.

Authors:  Michael Farnsworth
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

2.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Authors:  M Daniel Wongworawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Community Healthcare and Technology to Enhance Communication in Pediatric Obesity Care.

Authors:  Robert M Siegel; Matthew Haemer; Roohi Y Kharofa; Amy L Christison; Sarah E Hampl; Lydia Tinajero-Deck; Mary Kate Lockhart; Sarah Reich; Stephen J Pont; William Stratbucker; Thomas N Robinson; Laura A Shaffer; Susan J Woolford
Journal:  Child Obes       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 2.992

4.  CEDRA: A Tool to Help Consumers Assess Risk for Ear Disease.

Authors:  Niall A M Klyn; Samantha Kleindienst Robler; Jamie Bogle; Razan Alfakir; Donald W Nielsen; James W Griffith; Deborah L Carlson; Larry Lundy; Sumitrajit Dhar; David A Zapala
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Health Literacy and Informed Consent Materials: Designed for Documentation, Not Comprehension of Health Research.

Authors:  Vanessa Watts Simonds; Eva Marie Garroutte; Dedra Buchwald
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2017-07-31

6.  Consulting Dr. Google: Quality of Online Resources About Tympanostomy Tube Placement.

Authors:  Vandra C Harris; Anne R Links; Paul Hong; Jonathan Walsh; Desi P Schoo; David E Tunkel; Charles M Stewart; Emily F Boss
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Understood? Evaluating the readability and understandability of intranasal corticosteroid delivery instructions.

Authors:  Saangyoung E Lee; William C Brown; Mark W Gelpi; Adam J Kimple; Brent A Senior; Adam M Zanation; Brian D Thorp; Charles S Ebert
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.858

8.  Moving Beyond Readability Metrics for Health-Related Text Simplification.

Authors:  David Kauchak; Gondy Leroy
Journal:  IT Prof       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication.

Authors:  Daniel José Correa; Lindsey Milano; Churl-Su Kwon; Nathalie Jetté; Dennis Dlugos; Lauren Harte-Hargrove; Mary Jo Pugh; Jessica K Smith; Solomon L Moshé
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 5.864

10.  Readability and Coherence of Department/Ministry of Health HPV Information.

Authors:  Kurt Lomas Tulsieram; Jose Frank Arocha; Joon Lee
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.