Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaires for Use with Persons with Swallowing Disorders

被引：0
作者：
Richard I. Zraick
Samuel R. Atcherson
Bonnie K. Ham
机构：
[1] University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and University of Arkansas at Little Rock,Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology
[2] University of Arkansas at Little Rock,undefined
来源：
Dysphagia | 2012年 / 27卷
关键词：
Readability; Patient-reported outcome measures; Swallowing; Dysphagia deglutition; Questionnaires; Swallowing-related quality of life; Dysphagia-related quality of life; Health literacy; Deglutition disorders;
D O I：
暂无
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
The purposes of this study were to examine the readability of published patient-related outcome (PRO) questionnaires for persons with swallowing problems, and to compare the readability results to existing data about average reading levels of English-speaking adults living in the United States. A search was conducted to identify published PRO questionnaires related to swallowing problems that traditionally are completed by patients in a self-administered format. Reading grade levels were analyzed separately for four different swallowing-related PRO questionnaires using the Flesch Reading Ease, FOG, and FORCAST formulas as computed by a readability calculations software package. Descriptive statistics were also computed across the questionnaires. The results of this study demonstrate that all four PRO questionnaires exceeded the fifth- to sixth-grade reading levels recommended by health literacy experts regardless of the formula applied. In the demand for standardization of swallowing-related quality-of-life assessment tools, developers should consider readability as another testable construct, since poor readability may affect validity, reliability, and sensitivity. The swallowing clinician should consider the average reading level needed to understand a particular PRO questionnaire when administering it to a patient or his or her proxy. Developers of PRO questionnaires should consider the reading level of respondents and include information about this when reporting psychometric data.
引用
收藏
页码：346 / 352
页数：6
相关论文
共 110 条
  • [11] Hays RD(2008)Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a speech and language therapy department Int J Lang Commun Disord 43 712-722
  • [12] Weiss BD(2008)Validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 12 919-992
  • [13] Coyne C(2001)The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M.D. Anderson dysphagia inventory Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 7 870-876
  • [14] Freda M(2002)The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity Dysphagia 2 97-114
  • [15] Hester EJ(2005)Readability of notice of privacy forms used by major health care institutions JAMA 293 1593-1594
  • [16] Stevens-Ratchford R(1948)A new readability yardstick J Appl Psychol 32 221-233
  • [17] Kahn A(1996)The use of readability formulas in healthcare Psychol Health Med 1 7-28
  • [18] Pannbacker M(2000)Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses ACM J Comput Doc 24 132-137
  • [19] Shadden B(2009)Readability of self-report measures of depression and anxiety J Consult Clin Psychol 77 1100-1112
  • [20] Raiford C(1991)Readability formulas: cautions and criteria Patient Educ Couns 17 153-158
12345678910