Sarah J Shoemaker1, Michael S Wolf2, Cindy Brach3. 1. Health Policy, Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, USA. Electronic address: sarah_shoemaker@abtassoc.com. 2. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA. 3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess the understandability and actionability of print and audiovisual materials. METHODS: We compiled items from existing instruments/guides that the expert panel assessed for face/content validity. We completed four rounds of reliability testing, and produced evidence of construct validity with consumers and readability assessments. RESULTS: The experts deemed the PEMAT items face/content valid. Four rounds of reliability testing and refinement were conducted using raters untrained on the PEMAT. Agreement improved across rounds. The final PEMAT showed moderate agreement per Kappa (Average K=0.57) and strong agreement per Gwet's AC1 (Average=0.74). Internal consistency was strong (α=0.71; Average Item-Total Correlation=0.62). For construct validation with consumers (n=47), we found significant differences between actionable and poorly-actionable materials in comprehension scores (76% vs. 63%, p<0.05) and ratings (8.9 vs. 7.7, p<0.05). For understandability, there was a significant difference for only one of two topics on consumer numeric scores. For actionability, there were significant positive correlations between PEMAT scores and consumer-testing results, but no relationship for understandability. There were, however, strong, negative correlations between grade-level and both consumer-testing results and PEMAT scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PEMAT demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability, and evidence of construct validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PEMAT can help professionals judge the quality of materials (available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat).
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess the understandability and actionability of print and audiovisual materials. METHODS: We compiled items from existing instruments/guides that the expert panel assessed for face/content validity. We completed four rounds of reliability testing, and produced evidence of construct validity with consumers and readability assessments. RESULTS: The experts deemed the PEMAT items face/content valid. Four rounds of reliability testing and refinement were conducted using raters untrained on the PEMAT. Agreement improved across rounds. The final PEMAT showed moderate agreement per Kappa (Average K=0.57) and strong agreement per Gwet's AC1 (Average=0.74). Internal consistency was strong (α=0.71; Average Item-Total Correlation=0.62). For construct validation with consumers (n=47), we found significant differences between actionable and poorly-actionable materials in comprehension scores (76% vs. 63%, p<0.05) and ratings (8.9 vs. 7.7, p<0.05). For understandability, there was a significant difference for only one of two topics on consumer numeric scores. For actionability, there were significant positive correlations between PEMAT scores and consumer-testing results, but no relationship for understandability. There were, however, strong, negative correlations between grade-level and both consumer-testing results and PEMAT scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PEMAT demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability, and evidence of construct validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PEMAT can help professionals judge the quality of materials (available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat).
Authors: Darren A Dewalt; Nancy D Berkman; Stacey Sheridan; Kathleen N Lohr; Michael P Pignone Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kimberly A Kaphingst; Matthew W Kreuter; Chris Casey; Luisa Leme; Tess Thompson; Meng-Ru Cheng; Heather Jacobsen; Ryan Sterling; Joy Oguntimein; Carl Filler; Arthur Culbert; Megan Rooney; Christy Lapka Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2012
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Paul Shekelle; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jessica Agnew-Blais; Ruth M Parker; William H Shrank Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alex Federman; Erin Sarzynski; Cindy Brach; Paul Francaviglia; Jessica Jacques; Lina Jandorf; Angela Sanchez Munoz; Michael Wolf; Joseph Kannry Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Kevin Wong; Katherine R Keefe; Amir Gilad; Christopher J Chong-Sun Li; Jessica R Levi Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Amr Salama; Janet Panoch; Elhaam Bandali; Aaron Carroll; Sarah Wiehe; Stephen Downs; Mark P Cain; Richard Frankel; Katherine H Chan Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Angela G Brega; Megan A G Freedman; William G LeBlanc; Juliana Barnard; Natabhona M Mabachi; Maribel Cifuentes; Karen Albright; Barry D Weiss; Cindy Brach; David R West Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015
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
Authors: Cathy A Maxwell; Russell Rothman; Ruth Wolever; Sandra Simmons; Mary S Dietrich; Richard Miller; Mayur Patel; Mohana B Karlekar; Sheila Ridner Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 2.361
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