Tools for Assessing Readability and Quality of Health-Related Web Sites

  • Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker
  • Amy Curry Sturm
  • Muniba Saleem
  • Kimberly M. Kelly
Professional Issues


With the Internet becoming a growing source of information on genetics, genetic counselors and other health-care providers may be called upon to guide their patients to appropriate material, which is written at a suitable reading level for the individual and contains quality information. Given that many health-related Web sites are written at a high school or higher reading level, without direction from a genetic counselor or health-care provider, many Internet users may currently be turning to health-related Web sites that they do not understand. Additionally, Internet users may not know how to evaluate the quality of information they find, which could lead to them access inaccurate or irrelevant information. To aid in the process of finding and designing Web sites that are appropriate for patients, the current article provides guidelines for assessing readability and quality of health-related content. Additionally, a demonstration of an assessment is provided. Finally, limitations of these assessments are discussed.


Web sites Internet Readability Quality Health information 


  1. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21, 285–301. doi: 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00005-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bath, P. A., & Bouchier, H. (2003). Development and application of a tool designed to evaluate web-sites providing information on Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Information Science, 29, 279–297. doi: 10.1177/01655515030294005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Development of readability analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 79–132. doi: 10.2307/747021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case, D., Johnson, J., Andrews, J., Allard, S., & Kelly, K. (2004). From two-step flow to the internet: The changing array of sources for genetics information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 660–669. doi: 10.1002/asi.20000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cotugna, N., Vickery, C. E., & Carpenter-Haefele, K. M. (2005). Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. Journal of Community Health, 30, 213–219. doi: 10.1007/s10900-004-1959-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1995). Readability revised: The new Dale–Chall readability formula. Brookline: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, T. C., Michielutte, R., Askov, E. N., Williams, M. W., & Weiss, B. D. (1998). Practical assessment of adult literacy in health care. Health Education & Behavior, 25, 613–624. doi: 10.1177/109019819802500508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  9. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2691–2700. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, K., Naumer, C., Durrance, J., Stromski, L., & Christiansen, T. (2005). Something old, something new: Preliminary findings from an exploratory study about people’s information habits and information grounds, Information Research, (paper 223).Google Scholar
  11. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford, P., Caylor, J., & Sticht, T. (1992). The FORCAST readability formula. Pennsylvania State University Nutrition Center, Bridge to Excellence Conference.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior, 33, 352–373. doi: 10.1177/1090198105277329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2007). An exploratory study of older adults’ comprehension of printed cancer information: Is readability a key factor. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 423–437. doi: 10.1080/10810730701438658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, D. B., Hoffman-Goetz, L., & Arocha, J. F. (2004). Readability of cancer information on the internet. Journal of Cancer Education, 19, 117–122. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce1902_13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, nnn, 513–578.Google Scholar
  17. Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Guttmacher, A. E. (2001). Human genetics on the web. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 2, 213–233. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harland, J., & Bath, P. (2007). Assessing the quality of websites providing information on multiple sclerosis: Evaluating tools and comparing sites. Health Informatics Journal, 13, 207–221. doi: 10.1177/1460458207079837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hochhauser, M. (2002). The effects of HIPAA on research consent forms. Patient Care Management, 17, 6–7.Google Scholar
  21. Kaphingst, K. A., Zanfini, C. J., & Emmons, K. M. (2006). Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy. Cancer Causes & Control, 17, 147–151. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-5116-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, P., Eng, T. R., Deering, M. J., & Maxfield, A. (1999). Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites. British Medical Journal, 318, 647–649, Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Robers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). (No. 8–75). Memphis, TN: Naval Air Station: Research Branch Report.Google Scholar
  24. Kunst, H., Groot, D., Latthe, P. M., Latthe, M., & Khan, K. S. (2002). Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: Survey of five common health topics. British Medical Journal, 324, 581–582. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mclaughlin, G. H. (1969). Smog grading—a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.Google Scholar
  26. Meric, F., Bernstam, E. V., Mirza, N. Q., Hunt, K. K., Ames, F. C., Ross, M. I., et al. (2002). Breast cancer on the world wide web: Cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. British Medical Journal, 324, 577–581. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Society of Genetic Counselors.(2008). FAQs about genetic counselors and the NSGC. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from
  28. Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Parker, R. M., Gazmararian, J. A., Nielsen-Bohlman, L. T., & Rudd, R. R. (2005). The prevalence of limited health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 175–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40245.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721–726. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pew Internet and American Life Project.(2006). Online health search 2006. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from
  31. Powers, R. D., Sumner, W. A., & Kearl, B. E. (1958). A recalculation of four adult readability formulas. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 99–105. doi: 10.1037/h0043254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Provost, M., Koompalum, D., Dong, D., & Martin, B. C. (2006). The initial development of the webmedqual scale: Domain assessment of the construct of quality of health web sites. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 42–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.034.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raygor, A. L. (1977). The Raygor readability estimate: A quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 259–263). Clemson: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  34. Redish, J. C., & Selzer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32, 46–52.Google Scholar
  35. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Estabrooks Hahn, S., Strecker, M. N., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ task force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 77–83. doi: 10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seidman, J. J., Steinwachs, D., & Rubin, H. R. (2003). Design and testing of a tool for evaluating the quality of diabetes consumer-information web sites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, nnn, 5.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, E. A., & Senter, R. J. (1967). Automated readability index. AMRL-TR (6570th Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory), nnn, 1–14.Google Scholar
  38. Spache, G. (1974). Good reading for poor readers. Champaign, IL: Garrard.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, M. R. G., Alman, A., & David, K. (2001). Use of the internet by patients and their families to obtain genetics-related information. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76, 772–776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Health people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from
  41. Weiss, B. D. (1998). Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills: Report of the national work group on literacy and health. The Journal of Family Practice, 46, 168–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Curry Sturm
    • 3
  • Muniba Saleem
    • 4
  • Kimberly M. Kelly
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Comprehensive Cancer CenterThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Division of Human GeneticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  5. 5.Human Cancer GeneticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  6. 6.302C Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations