Grabeel Kelsey Leonard, Russomanno Jennifer, Oelschlegel Sandy, Tester Emily, Heidel Robert Eric
J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):38-45. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.262. Epub 2018 Jan 2.
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.
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 -tests were used to compare readability means.
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; <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.
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.
本研究对田纳西州东部一家学术医疗中心分发的患者教育材料的年级水平评估的人工评分法和计算机化方法进行了比较和对比,并试图确定这些材料是否符合美国医学协会(AMA)推荐的六年级阅读水平。
位于田纳西州阿巴拉契亚中心地带的一家学术医疗中心的图书馆员开始对150份最常用的印刷患者教育材料进行评估。根据弗莱施-金凯德(F-K)评分标准,150份文件中有2份因无文本(仅有图片)被排除在统计比较之外。研究人员使用人工评分的简明晦涩度测量法(SMOG)和计算机化的F-K年级水平法对其余148份文件进行评估。对于SMOG,3名独立评审员对150份文件逐一进行人工评分。对于F-K,使用Microsoft Word对文件进行分析。阅读年级水平分数录入数据库进行统计分析。使用组内相关系数(ICC)计算评分者间信度。采用配对t检验比较可读性均值。
SMOG的评分者间信度可接受(ICC=0.95)。对于评估的148份文件,SMOG得出的平均阅读年级水平(M=9.6,标准差=1.3)显著高于F-K(M=6.5,标准差=1.3;P<0.001)。此外,使用SMOG评估方法时,148份文件中有147份(99.3%)的得分高于AMA推荐的六年级阅读水平。
许多全国性患者教育材料提供商使用的计算机化健康素养评估工具可能无法代表患者教育材料的实际阅读年级水平。在阿巴拉契亚这样的地区,这是个问题,因为该地区低文化水平的患者可能无法理解这些材料。医学图书馆员有潜力在患者教育中发挥更大作用,以更好地服务患者群体。