Abstract
Objectives: We compared two non-alternative methods to assess the readability and learning of easy-to-read educational health materials co-written by physicians, educators and citizens. Methods: Data from seven easy-to-read materials were analyzed. Readability formulae, and ad hoc data on readability and learning were also computed. Results: The respondents had a mean age of 48.5 ± 8.3 (SD) years (range 31–57 years). More than two thirds of them were females. About half of the participants had a ‘secondary’ education or more. According to the readability scores – 54 on average – the booklets resulted to be “easy” for a reader who had received a ‘secondary education’ or more. Of the 747 participants, 70% of them found the booklet’s language to be ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ and 28% ‘sufficiently easy’ for laypersons to understand. About 98% of the readers found the booklets useful. After reading the booklet 92% (simple knowledge rate) of the readers answered the cognitive items correctly. The after-minus-before net increase in knowledge was 24 ± 16% and ranged from 8 to 40% (cognitive or knowledge delta). Conclusions: The availability of readability scores is complementary and it does not replace the need to assess readability and learning by means of structured and tailored questionnaires.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
M.R. Andrus M.T. Roth (2002) ArticleTitleHealth literacy: A review Pharmacotherapy 22 282–302 Occurrence Handle10.1592/phco.22.5.282.33191
A.V. Ciardullo M.L. Luca ParticleDe M. Brunetti M.M. Daghio (2003a) ArticleTitleImpacto de una iniciativa de información sanitaria en atencion primaria para los ciudadanos Atencion Primaria 32 254–256 Occurrence Handle10.1157/13051013
Ciardullo A.V., Fattori G., Carrozzi G. & Daghio M.M. (2003b). Evaluation of an information tool for diabetic patient education. Diabetic Medicine (in press)
M.M. Daghio M.D. Vezzani A.V. Ciardullo (2003) ArticleTitleImpact of an educational intervention on breastfeeding Birth 30 214–215 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00250.x
B.L. Daiker (1992) ArticleTitleEvaluating health and safety lectures: How to measure lucidity AAOHN Journal 40 438–445
L.G. Doak C.C. Doak (1987) ArticleTitleLowering the silent barriers to compliance for patients with low literacy skills Promoting Health 8 6–8
D.A. Fitzmaurice J.L. Adams (2000) ArticleTitleA systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension Journal of Human Hypertension 14 259–262 Occurrence Handle10.1038/sj.jhh.1001003
R. Flesch (1948) ArticleTitleA new readability yardstick Journal of Applied Psychology 32 2211–2223
V. Franchina R. Vacca (1986) ArticleTitleAdaptation of Flesh readability index on a bilingual text written by the same author both in Italian and English languages Linguaggi 3 47–49
R. Fry (1977) ArticleTitleFry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17 Journal of Reading 21 241–252
C.K. Johnson R.K. Johnson (1987) ArticleTitleReadability School Science Review 68 565–568
J.P. Kincaid R.P. Fishburne R.L. Rogers B.S Chissom (1975) Derivation of New Readability Formulae (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Research Branch report 8–75 Memphis Naval Air Station
G.R. Klare (1984) Readability P.D. Pearson R. Barr M.L. Kamil P.B. Mosenthal (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research Vol. 1 Longman New York 681–744
M. Knowles (1990) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (4th edition). 31 Gulf Publishing Houston
Lucisano P. & Piemontese M.E. (1988). GULPEASE: A Formula to Predict Readability of Texts Written in Italian Language. In [School and Town], La Nuova Italia Brescia, Italy, pp. 3–31
G.H. McLaughlin (1969) ArticleTitleSMOG grading: A new readability formula Journal of Reading 12 639–646
C.D. Meade J.C. Byrd (1989) ArticleTitlePatient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature American Journal of Public Health 79 204–206 Occurrence Handle10.2105/AJPH.79.2.204
InstitutionalAuthorNameNational Work Group on Literacy, and Health (1988) ArticleTitleCommunicating with patients who have limited literacy skills: Report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health Journal of Family Practice 46 168–176
G.R. Norman (1999) ArticleTitleThe adult learner: A mythical species Academic Medicine 74 886–889 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00001888-199908000-00011
R.D. Powers W.A. Sumner B.E. Kearl (1998) ArticleTitleA recalculation of 4 readability formulae Journal of Educational Psychology 49 99–105
R.E. Rudd B.A. Moeykens T.C. Colton (1999) Health and literacy: A review of medical and public health literature J. Comings B. Garners C. Smith (Eds) Health and Literacy Jossey-Bass New York
InstitutionalAuthorNameSchool of Barbiana (1972) Letter to a Teacher Penguin, Harmondsworth Middlesex 27
D.C. Spadero (1983) ArticleTitleAssessing readability of patient information materials Pediatric Nursing 9 274–278
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daghio, M.M., Fattori, G. & Ciardullo, A.V. Assessment of Readability and Learning of Easy-to-Read Educational Health Materials Designed and Written with the Help of Citizens by Means of Two Non-Alternative Methods. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 11, 123–132 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-7852-2
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-7852-2