Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Pediatrics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klingbeil, C.
Right arrow Articles by Schubiner, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Klingbeil, C.
Right arrow Articles by Schubiner, H.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Children's Health
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials

Current Perspectives on an Old Problem

Carol Klingbeil

Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Department of Internal Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit. Michigan

Mark W. Speece

Department of Internal Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit. Michigan

Howard Schubiner

Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Department of Internal Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit. Michigan

Written patient education materials are an important part of ambulatory pediatric practices. We evaluated the readability of 33 representative pediatric education materials using three common formulas: Fog, Fry, and SMOG. The majority of pamphlets had readabilities of grade nine or above. The need to use multiple readability formulas was also demonstrated. Although the three readability formulas were highly correlated, they were significantly different from each other when using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) design. In almost half, the readability estimates differed by at least two grade levels. In addition, a large intrapamphlet variability for some pamphlets suggests a need to focus more attention on the readability of multiple sections within a pamphlet, not only on the overall or average readability. We conclude that the readability levels of patient education materials continue to be too high.

Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 96-102 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/000992289503400206
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?