Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Professional Issues
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Development of readability analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 79–132. doi:10.2307/747021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1995). Readability revised: The new Dale–Chall readability formula. Brookline: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. doi:10.1037/h0057532.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, P., Caylor, J., & Sticht, T. (1992). The FORCAST readability formula. Pennsylvania State University Nutrition Center, Bridge to Excellence Conference.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, nnn, 513–578.

  • Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hochhauser, M. (2002). The effects of HIPAA on research consent forms. Patient Care Management, 17, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Robers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). (No. 8–75). Memphis, TN: Naval Air Station: Research Branch Report.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mclaughlin, G. H. (1969). Smog grading—a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Society of Genetic Counselors.(2008). FAQs about genetic counselors and the NSGC. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.nsgc.org/about/faq.cfm.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Internet and American Life Project.(2006). Online health search 2006. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_online_Health_2006.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Redish, J. C., & Selzer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32, 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Smith, E. A., & Senter, R. J. (1967). Automated readability index. AMRL-TR (6570th Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory), nnn, 1–14.

  • Spache, G. (1974). Good reading for poor readers. Champaign, IL: Garrard.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Health people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/HTML/Volume1/Opening.html.

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker & Kimberly M. Kelly

  2. Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker & Kimberly M. Kelly

  3. Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Amy Curry Sturm

  4. Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Muniba Saleem

  5. Human Cancer Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Kimberly M. Kelly

  6. 302C Comprehensive Cancer Center, 410 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Kimberly M. Kelly

Authors
  1. Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Curry Sturm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muniba Saleem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kimberly M. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly M. Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Sturm, A.C., Saleem, M. et al. Tools for Assessing Readability and Quality of Health-Related Web Sites. J Genet Counsel 18, 49–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9181-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9181-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation