Cargando…

Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials

OBJECTIVE: The research compared and contrasted hand-scoring and computerized methods of evaluating the grade level of patient education materials that are distributed at an academic medical center in east Tennessee and sought to determine if these materials adhered to the American Medical Associati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard, Russomanno, Jennifer, Oelschlegel, Sandy, Tester, Emily, Heidel, Robert Eric
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medical Library Association 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339932
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.262
_version_ 1783292078624604160
author Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard
Russomanno, Jennifer
Oelschlegel, Sandy
Tester, Emily
Heidel, Robert Eric
author_facet Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard
Russomanno, Jennifer
Oelschlegel, Sandy
Tester, Emily
Heidel, Robert Eric
author_sort Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The research compared and contrasted hand-scoring and computerized methods of evaluating the grade level of patient education materials that are distributed at an academic medical center in east Tennessee and sought to determine if these materials adhered to the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) recommended reading level of sixth grade. METHODS: Librarians at an academic medical center located in the heart of Appalachian Tennessee initiated the assessment of 150 of the most used printed patient education materials. Based on the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) scoring rubric, 2 of the 150 documents were excluded from statistical comparisons due to the absence of text (images only). Researchers assessed the remaining 148 documents using the hand-scored Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) method and the computerized F-K grade level method. For SMOG, 3 independent reviewers hand-scored each of the 150 documents. For F-K, documents were analyzed using Microsoft Word. Reading grade levels scores were entered into a database for statistical analysis. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Paired t-tests were used to compare readability means. RESULTS: Acceptable inter-rater reliability was found for SMOG (ICC=0.95). For the 148 documents assessed, SMOG produced a significantly higher mean reading grade level (M=9.6, SD=1.3) than F-K (M=6.5, SD=1.3; p<0.001). Additionally, when using the SMOG method of assessment, 147 of the 148 documents (99.3%) scored above the AMA’s recommended reading level of sixth grade. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized health literacy assessment tools, used by many national patient education material providers, might not be representative of the actual reading grade levels of patient education materials. This is problematic in regions like Appalachia because materials may not be comprehensible to the area’s low-literacy patients. Medical librarians have the potential to advance their role in patient education to better serve their patient populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5764592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medical Library Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57645922018-01-16 Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard Russomanno, Jennifer Oelschlegel, Sandy Tester, Emily Heidel, Robert Eric J Med Libr Assoc Paper OBJECTIVE: The research compared and contrasted hand-scoring and computerized methods of evaluating the grade level of patient education materials that are distributed at an academic medical center in east Tennessee and sought to determine if these materials adhered to the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) recommended reading level of sixth grade. METHODS: Librarians at an academic medical center located in the heart of Appalachian Tennessee initiated the assessment of 150 of the most used printed patient education materials. Based on the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) scoring rubric, 2 of the 150 documents were excluded from statistical comparisons due to the absence of text (images only). Researchers assessed the remaining 148 documents using the hand-scored Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) method and the computerized F-K grade level method. For SMOG, 3 independent reviewers hand-scored each of the 150 documents. For F-K, documents were analyzed using Microsoft Word. Reading grade levels scores were entered into a database for statistical analysis. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Paired t-tests were used to compare readability means. RESULTS: Acceptable inter-rater reliability was found for SMOG (ICC=0.95). For the 148 documents assessed, SMOG produced a significantly higher mean reading grade level (M=9.6, SD=1.3) than F-K (M=6.5, SD=1.3; p<0.001). Additionally, when using the SMOG method of assessment, 147 of the 148 documents (99.3%) scored above the AMA’s recommended reading level of sixth grade. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized health literacy assessment tools, used by many national patient education material providers, might not be representative of the actual reading grade levels of patient education materials. This is problematic in regions like Appalachia because materials may not be comprehensible to the area’s low-literacy patients. Medical librarians have the potential to advance their role in patient education to better serve their patient populations. Medical Library Association 2018-01 2018-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5764592/ /pubmed/29339932 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.262 Text en Copyright: © 2018, Authors. Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Paper
Grabeel, Kelsey Leonard
Russomanno, Jennifer
Oelschlegel, Sandy
Tester, Emily
Heidel, Robert Eric
Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title_full Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title_fullStr Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title_full_unstemmed Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title_short Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
title_sort computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of simple measure of gobbledygook (smog) and flesch-kincaid in printed patient education materials
topic Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339932
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.262
work_keys_str_mv AT grabeelkelseyleonard computerizedversushandscoredhealthliteracytoolsacomparisonofsimplemeasureofgobbledygooksmogandfleschkincaidinprintedpatienteducationmaterials
AT russomannojennifer computerizedversushandscoredhealthliteracytoolsacomparisonofsimplemeasureofgobbledygooksmogandfleschkincaidinprintedpatienteducationmaterials
AT oelschlegelsandy computerizedversushandscoredhealthliteracytoolsacomparisonofsimplemeasureofgobbledygooksmogandfleschkincaidinprintedpatienteducationmaterials
AT testeremily computerizedversushandscoredhealthliteracytoolsacomparisonofsimplemeasureofgobbledygooksmogandfleschkincaidinprintedpatienteducationmaterials
AT heidelroberteric computerizedversushandscoredhealthliteracytoolsacomparisonofsimplemeasureofgobbledygooksmogandfleschkincaidinprintedpatienteducationmaterials