Contents
Academic literature on the topic 'Fry Readability Index'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Fry Readability Index.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Fry Readability Index"
1
Kahn, Alice, and Mary Pannbacker. "Readability of Educational Materials for Clients With Cleft Lip/Palate and Their Families." American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 9, no. 1 (February 2000): 3–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0901.03.
Full textAbstract:
Educational materials for clients with cleft lip/palate and their families and materials for the general public produced by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association were analyzed for readability. The SMOG Grading Formula, a simple, fast procedure for predicting grade-level difficulty of written material, and the Fry index of readability, a more lengthy measure of readability, were used to analyze 30 publications. Reading levels were computed, and results ranged from elementary to college level. The majority of materials were written at or above the high school readability level. Results suggest a need for revision of current materials to lower reading levels. Writers should consider the appropriateness of reading level for readers when preparing educational materials.
2
Kakazu, Rafael, Adam Schumaier, Chelsea Minoughan, and Brian Grawe. "Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement." Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 6, no. 11 (November 1, 2018): 232596711880538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967118805386.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Appropriate education on the disease processes associated with orthopaedic pathology can affect patient expectations and functional outcome. Hypothesis: Patient education resources from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) are too complex for comprehension by the average orthopaedic patient. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM were analyzed with software that provided 10 readability scores as well as opportunities for improving readability. The readability scores were compared with the recommended eighth-grade reading level. Results: A total of 39 patient education resources were identified and evaluated. The mean ± SD reading grade-level scores were as follows: Coleman-Liau Index, 12.5 ± 1.11; New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, 10.9 ± 1.37; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, 9.9 ± 1.06; FORCAST Readability Formula, 11.4 ± 0.51; Fry Readability Formula, 12.8 ± 2.79; Gunning Fog Index, 11.9 ± 1.37; Raygor Readability Index, 13.1 ± 2.37; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 12.3 ± 0.90; Automated Readability Index, 11.2 ± 1.18; and New Automated Readability Index, 10.6 ± 1.27. After averaging the reading grade-level scores, only 1 patient education resource was found to be written at an 8th- to 9th-grade level, and 14 (36%) were written above a 12th-grade level. All scores were significantly different from the eighth-grade level ( P < .0065). The percentage of complex words and long words were 19.6% ± 2.67% and 41.4% ± 3.18%, respectively. Conclusion: Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM are at a significantly higher reading level than recommended. Simple changes can drastically improve these scores to increase health literacy and possibly outcome.
3
Kapoor, Karan, Praveen George, Matthew C. Evans, Weldon J. Miller, and Stanley S. Liu. "Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material." Cardiology 138, no. 1 (2017): 36–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000475881.
Full textAbstract:
Objectives: To determine whether the online patient education material offered by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) is written at a higher level than the 6th-7th grade level recommended by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Methods: Online patient education material from each website was subjected to reading grade level (RGL) analysis using the Readability Studio Professional Edition. One-sample t testing was used to compare the mean RGLs obtained from 8 formulas to the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean. Results: In total, 372 articles from the ACC website and 82 from the AHA were studied. Mean (±SD) RGLs for the 454 articles were 9.6 ± 2.1, 11.2 ± 2.1, 11.9 ± 1.6, 10.8 ± 1.6, 9.7 ± 2.1, 10.8 ± 0.8, 10.5 ± 2.6, and 11.7 ± 3.5 according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG Index), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), New Dale-Chall reading level formula (NDC), FORCAST, Raygor Readability Estimate (RRE), and Fry Graph (Fry), respectively. All analyzed articles had significantly higher RGLs than both the NIH-recommended grade level of 6.5 and the national mean grade level of 8 (p < 0.00625). Conclusions: Patient education material provided on the ACC and AHA websites is written above the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean reading level. Additional studies are required to demonstrate whether lowering the RGL of this material improves outcomes among patients with cardiovascular disease.
4
Eloy, Jean Anderson, Shawn Li, Khushabu Kasabwala, Nitin Agarwal, David R. Hansberry, Soly Baredes, and Michael Setzen. "Readability Assessment of Patient Education Materials on Major Otolaryngology Association Websites." Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 147, no. 5 (August 3, 2012): 848–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599812456152.
Full textAbstract:
Objective Various otolaryngology associations provide Internet-based patient education material (IPEM) to the general public. However, this information may be written above the fourth- to sixth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of otolaryngology-related IPEMs on various otolaryngology association websites and to determine whether they are above the recommended reading level for patient education materials. Study Design and Setting Analysis of patient education materials from 9 major otolaryngology association websites. Methods The readability of 262 otolaryngology-related IPEMs was assessed with 8 numerical and 2 graphical readability tools. Averages were evaluated against national recommendations and between each source using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) analysis. Mean readability scores for each otolaryngology association website were compared. Results Mean website readability scores using Flesch Reading Ease test, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG grading, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, FORCAST Formula, New Fog Count Test, Raygor Readability Estimate, and the Fry Readability Graph ranged from 20.0 to 57.8, 9.7 to 17.1, 10.7 to 15.9, 11.6 to 18.2, 10.9 to 15.0, 8.6 to 16.0, 10.4 to 12.1, 8.5 to 11.8, 10.5 to 17.0, and 10.0 to 17.0, respectively. ANOVA results indicate a significant difference ( P < .05) between the websites for each individual assessment. Conclusion The IPEMs found on all otolaryngology association websites exceed the recommended fourth- to sixth-grade reading level.
5
Gill, Marie E. "Drug court handbooks suitability for programme participants with low literacy." Health Education Journal 77, no. 8 (July 16, 2018): 995–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0017896918786531.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the suitability of adult drug court handbooks for participants with low literacy. Methods: A convenience sample of seven drug court participant handbooks from urban drug courts in three regions of the USA were assessed for reading and literacy suitability for low-literacy learners using the Fry Index Readability Formula and the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). The Fry Index Readability Formula follows an objective approach using a three-step process of counting three random samples of 100-word passages to calculate grade reading level. The SAM uses a 0–2 range scale to assess six distinct factors of written materials to yield a numerical score as superior, adequate or not suitable. Results: All handbooks were written above the reading level for low-literacy learners with scores at the eighth grade reading level or higher. A few handbooks scored adequate ratings in some SAM categories, and only two handbooks scored superior ratings in any one category. Overall SAM scores showed all handbooks were not suitable for low-literacy learners. Conclusion: Findings indicate that drug court participant handbooks from this sample are not written for low-literacy learners. Key recommendations are to develop a drug court handbook appropriate for participants with low literacy, assess drug court participants’ literacy for reading grade level and comprehension and provide multi-modal teaching formats to promote effective learning.
6
O'Sullivan, Lydia, Prasanth Sukumar, Rachel Crowley, Eilish McAuliffe, and Peter Doran. "Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis." BMJ Open 10, no. 9 (September 2020): e037994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037994.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectivesThe first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.DesignRetrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.SettingPILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.InterventionNot applicable.Main outcome measuresPILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.ResultsA total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as ‘Plain English’, 40.3%: ‘Fairly Difficult’, 51.3%: ‘Difficult’ and 1.3%: ‘Very Difficult’. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.ConclusionsWhen assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.
7
Kaur, Supreet, Abhishek Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, and Michael Maroules. "So Difficult to Understand : Readability Index Analysis of Online Patient Information on Lymphoma from NCI- Designated Cancer Center." Blood 128, no. 22 (December 2, 2016): 3567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v128.22.3567.3567.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Objectives - In current era of information technology, there is abundance of medical information for the patients and families. It is recommended that the online patient information (OPI) should be written no greater than sixth grade as per The National Institute of Health (NIH), American Medical Association, Department of Health & Human Services. We aim is to assess whether OPI on lymphoma from NCI-Designated Cancer Center (NCIDCC) and various cancer associations websites meet the current recommendations on a panel of readability indexes. Methods - OPI from patient only section of NCIDCC and cancer associations websites were collected. This text was analyzed by 7 commonly used readability tests - Flesch Reading Ease score(FRE), Gunning Fog(GF), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(FKGL), The Coleman-Liau Index(CLI), The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Automated Readability Index(ARI) and Linsear Write Formula(LWF). Text from each article was pasted into Microsoft Word and analyzed using the online software Readability formulas. Results - The mean FRE score is 55.4 (range 37.4-67.9) which corresponded to difficult level grade. The mean GF score is 12.9 (range 10.8-15.2) that comes between difficult and hard. The FKGL score is 9.9 (range 7.2-11.9) that corresponds to above the level of ninth grader.The mean CLI score is 11.09 (range 9-12) which represented text of twelfth grade. The mean SMOG index is 9.6 (range 8.1-11.1) which corresponded to greater than seventh grade level. While the mean ARI score was 10.5 (range 7.7-12.5) which represents readability suitable for people more than tenth grade. The mean LWF was 11.29 (range 7.8-14.4) that corresponds to tenth grade level of text. Conclusion - The currently available OPI on lymphoma did not met the set national recommendations level on seven different validated readability indexes. Currently, available literature is difficult to understand and comprehend for average patient and their kins. There is a dire need to revise the currently available material for easy comprehension and understanding by the general patient population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
8
Munsour, Emad Eldin, Ahmed Awaisu, Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali, Sara Darwish, and Einas Abdoun. "Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Information Leaflets for Antidiabetic Medications in Qatar." Journal of Pharmacy Technology 33, no. 4 (April 28, 2017): 128–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/8755122517706978.
Full textAbstract:
Background:The readability and comprehensibility of the patient information leaflets (PILs) provided with antidiabetic medications are of questionable standards; this issue negatively affects adherence to drug therapy, especially in patients with limited literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of PILs supplied with medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Qatar. Methods: All PILs of the antidiabetic medications in Qatar were evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score for readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading were used to estimate the comprehensibility of PILs in terms of school grade levels. Results: A total of 45 PILs were evaluated: 32 (71.1%) PILs of brand-name products and 13 (28.9%) for generics. Nine (20%) of the PILs were in English only; 8 (17.8%) were in English, Arabic, and French; and 28 (62.2%) were in English and Arabic. The mean FRE score was 37.71 (±15.85), and the most readable PIL had FRE score of 62. The mean scores for the comprehensibility evaluations were 10.96 (±2.67), 15.02 (±2.52), and 11.41 (±1.6) for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading, respectively. The most commonly used antidiabetic medication was metformin with 1372.9 (±552.9) as PILs’ mean number of words. Conclusion: Only 2.2% of PILs had acceptable readability scores. All PILs could be comprehended by at least an 11th grade student, which exceeds the recommended grade level for health-related materials. Approximately 20% of these PILs were in English only and were not readable by most patients.
9
Marshall, Rebecca, Eoghan Pomeroy, Catriona McKendry, Michael Gilmartin, Paula McQuail, and Mark Johnson. "Anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement: A review of patient education materials available online." F1000Research 8 (April 9, 2019): 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18675.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Patients frequently consult the internet for health information. Our aim was to perform an Internet-based readability and quality control study using recognised quality scoring systems to assess the patient information available online relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement surgery. Methods: Online patient information relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement was identified using Google, Bing and Yahoo with search terms ‘hip replacement anaesthetic’, ‘knee replacement anaesthetic.’ Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using DISCERN instrument, Health On the Net Foundation seal, and Information Standard mark. Results: 32 websites were analysed. 25% were HONcode certified, 15.6% had the Information Standard. Mean FRE was 55.2±12.8. Mean FKGL was 8.6±1.9. Six websites (18.8%) had the recommended 6th-grade readability level. Mean of 10.4±2.6 years of formal education was required to read the websites. Websites with Information Standard were easier to read: FKGL (6.2 vs. 9, P < 0.001), GFI (8.8 vs. 10.7, P = 0.04), FRE score (64.2 vs. 9, P = 0.02). Mean DISCERN score was low: 40.3 ± 13. Conclusions: Overall, most websites were poor quality with reading levels too high for the target audience. Information Standard NHS quality mark was associated with improved readability, however along with HONcode were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with quality. Based on this study, we would encourage healthcare professionals to be judicious in the websites they recommend to patients, and to consider both the readability and quality of the information provided.
10
Ye, Michael J., Mohamedkazim M. Alwani, Jonathan L. Harper, Lauren M. Van Buren, Elhaam H. Bandali, Elisa A. Illing, Taha Z. Shipchandler, and Jonathan Y. Ting. "Readability of Printed Online Education Materials on Pituitary Tumors: Untangling a Web of Complexity." American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy 34, no. 6 (May 27, 2020): 759–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1945892420927288.
Full textAbstract:
Background Patients are increasingly turning to the internet for health education. Due to the complex pathophysiology, clinic-diagnostic profile, and management spectrum of pituitary tumors, an evaluation of the readability of printed online education materials (POEMs) regarding this entity is warranted. Objective (1) To apply established readability assessment tools to internet search results on the topic of pituitary tumors. (2) To identify sources of complexity in order to guide the creation POEMs that are in line with the reading level of the target audience. Methodology: After independent, neutral internet search for the phrase “pituitary tumor,” the first 100 results were subjected to inclusion criteria matching. Analysis was performed using 5 readability assessment tools including Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning-Fog Score (GFS), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Results A total of 82 websites met inclusion criteria. All websites were found to be at a higher reading level ( P < .01) than the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) recommended sixth-grade level. Mean readability scores were as follows: FRE, 38.79; FKGL, 11.27; GFS, 12.83; CLI, 17.31; SMOG, 12.12. Intergroup comparison between FKGL, GFS, CLI, and SMOG yielded that CLI was significantly higher ( P < .03). No significant differences in readability were noted between academic and other websites. Conclusion There is a significant misalignment between the reading level of patients and the readability of pituitary tumor POEMs. This may lead patients to misconceive their diagnoses, management options, and prognosis.