Cargando…

Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires

PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess readability of the most commonly used questionnaires in urology including a separate analysis of their single-items to identify questions that might be especially demanding for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines of the European Association of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Betschart, Patrick, Abt, Dominik, Schmid, Hans-Peter, Viktorin, Pascal, Langenauer, Janine, Zumstein, Valentin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Urological Association 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30182074
http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.297
_version_ 1783352373077344256
author Betschart, Patrick
Abt, Dominik
Schmid, Hans-Peter
Viktorin, Pascal
Langenauer, Janine
Zumstein, Valentin
author_facet Betschart, Patrick
Abt, Dominik
Schmid, Hans-Peter
Viktorin, Pascal
Langenauer, Janine
Zumstein, Valentin
author_sort Betschart, Patrick
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess readability of the most commonly used questionnaires in urology including a separate analysis of their single-items to identify questions that might be especially demanding for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines of the European Association of Urology were screened for recommended questionnaires. Readability was analyzed for complete questionnaires as well as their single-items separately using well established readability assessment tools, including Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index, and the Flesch Reading Ease formula. RESULTS: A total of 13 questionnaires were included to the analysis. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, FGI) showed readability scores of 2.7th to 16.7th grade. Easiest readability as calculated by median grade levels was found for the short form of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms short form (FLUTS-SF) while the short form of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) showed the hardest readability. Based on the FKGL between 0% (FLUTS-SF) and 80% (IIEF-5) of the single-items were written above the recommended grade levels. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaires that are used most frequently in urology mainly show a satisfactory overall readability. Inadequate readability levels were not only found for individual questionnaires but also for single-items of the majority of assessed questionnaires. This requires consideration for the interpretation of results and when developing novel health-related surveys.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6121017
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Korean Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61210172018-09-04 Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires Betschart, Patrick Abt, Dominik Schmid, Hans-Peter Viktorin, Pascal Langenauer, Janine Zumstein, Valentin Investig Clin Urol Special Article PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess readability of the most commonly used questionnaires in urology including a separate analysis of their single-items to identify questions that might be especially demanding for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines of the European Association of Urology were screened for recommended questionnaires. Readability was analyzed for complete questionnaires as well as their single-items separately using well established readability assessment tools, including Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index, and the Flesch Reading Ease formula. RESULTS: A total of 13 questionnaires were included to the analysis. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, FGI) showed readability scores of 2.7th to 16.7th grade. Easiest readability as calculated by median grade levels was found for the short form of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms short form (FLUTS-SF) while the short form of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) showed the hardest readability. Based on the FKGL between 0% (FLUTS-SF) and 80% (IIEF-5) of the single-items were written above the recommended grade levels. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaires that are used most frequently in urology mainly show a satisfactory overall readability. Inadequate readability levels were not only found for individual questionnaires but also for single-items of the majority of assessed questionnaires. This requires consideration for the interpretation of results and when developing novel health-related surveys. The Korean Urological Association 2018-09 2018-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6121017/ /pubmed/30182074 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.297 Text en © The Korean Urological Association, 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Special Article
Betschart, Patrick
Abt, Dominik
Schmid, Hans-Peter
Viktorin, Pascal
Langenauer, Janine
Zumstein, Valentin
Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title_full Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title_fullStr Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title_full_unstemmed Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title_short Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
title_sort readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires
topic Special Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30182074
http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.297
work_keys_str_mv AT betschartpatrick readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires
AT abtdominik readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires
AT schmidhanspeter readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires
AT viktorinpascal readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires
AT langenauerjanine readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires
AT zumsteinvalentin readabilityassessmentofcommonlyusedurologicalquestionnaires