Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

  1. Lawton M. A multidimensional view of quality of life in frail elders. In: Birren J, editor. The concept and measurement of quality of life in frail elders. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry - patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, 2009. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

  3. Valderas JM, Alonso J. Patient reported outcome measures: a model based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen AY, Frankowski R, Bishop-Leone J, Hebert T, Leyk S, Lewin J, Goepfert H. 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. 2001;127:870–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fung CH, Hays RD. Prospects and challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2006–483). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Weiss BD, Coyne C. Communicating with patients who cannot read. New Engl J Med. 1997;337:272–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Freda M. The readability of American Academy of Pediatrics patient education brochures. J Ped Health Care. 2005;19:151–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubay WH. The principles of readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (n.d.). Healthy People 2010. Available at www.health.gov/healthypeople. Accessed 19 Sep 2010.

  12. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Health literacy. Available at www.asha.org/members/slp/healthliteracy. Accessed 19 Sep 2010.

  13. Hester EJ, Stevens-Ratchford R. Health literacy and the role of the speech-language pathologist. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18:180–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahn A, Pannbacker M. Readability of educational materials for clients with cleft lip/cleft palate and their families. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2000;9:3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harris J, Fleming V, McDougall J. Effects of text and reader variables on understanding health information. Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL, November 2003.

  16. Shadden B, Raiford C. Factors influencing service utilization by older individuals: perceptions of communication disorders professionals and older respondents. J Commun Disord. 1984;17:209–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brennan A, Worrall L, McKenna K. The relationship between specific features of aphasia-friendly written material and comprehension of written material for people with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2005;19:923–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rose T, Worrall L, McKenna K. The effectiveness of aphasia-friendly principles for printed health education materials for people with aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology. 2003;17:947–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pothier L, Day R, Harris C, Pothier DD. Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a speech and language therapy department. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43:712–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Belafsky PC, Mouadeb DA, Rees CJ, Pryor GC, Postma JN, Allen J, Leonard RJ. Validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008;12:919–92.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen AY, Frankowski R, Bishop-Leone J, Hebert T, Leyk S, Lewin J, Goepfert H. 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. 2001;7:870–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. McHorney CA, Robbins J, Lomax K, Rosenbek JC, Chignell K, Kramer AE, Bricker DE. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;2:97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Breese P, Burman W. Readability of notice of privacy forms used by major health care institutions. JAMA. 2005;293:1593–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Caylor JS, Sticht TG, Fox LC, Ford JP. Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialties [Tech. Report No. 73–5]. Alexandria: Human Resources Research Organization; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gunning R. The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in healthcare. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1:7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Redish J. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Doc. 2000;24:132–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCall WA, Crabbs LM. Standard test lessons in reading. New York: Teachers College; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McHugh RK, Behar E. Readability of self-report measures of depression and anxiety. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77:1100–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991;17:153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zraick RI, Atcherson SR. Readability of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for use with persons with dysphonia. J Voice. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.01.009.

  33. Klare G. A second look at the validity of readability formulas. J Read Behav. 1976;8:129–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meikle MB, Stewart BJ, Griest SE, Martin WH, Henry JA, Abrams HB, McArdle R, Newman CW, Sandridge SA. Assessment of tinnitus: measurement of treatment outcome. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:511–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pollard WE, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, Martin MA, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: reliability of a health status measure. Med Care. 1976;14:146–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27:281–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The single item literacy screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wallace LR, Rogers ES, Roskos SE, Holiday DB, Weiss BD. Brief report: screening items to identify patients with limited health literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:874–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, Bradley KA, Nugent SM, Baines AD, Van Ryn M. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;23:561–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH. A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1036–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38:33–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolf MS, Williams MV, Parker RM, Parikh NS, Nowlan AW, Baker DW. Patients’ shame and attitudes toward discussing the results of literacy screening. J Health Commun. 2007;12:721–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Richard I. Zraick, Samuel R. Atcherson & Bonnie K. Ham

  2. Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S. University, Little Rock, AR, 72204, USA

    Richard I. Zraick

Authors
  1. Richard I. Zraick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel R. Atcherson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bonnie K. Ham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard I. Zraick.

Appendix

Appendix

The Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula

$$ {\text{RE}} = 206.835-(1.015 \times {\text{ASL}})-(84.6 \times {\text{ASW}}), $$

where RE is the readability ease, ASL is the average sentence length (i.e., the number of words divided by the number of sentences), and ASW is the average number of syllables per word (i.e., the number of syllables divided by the number of words). The output is a number ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the number, the easier the text is to read.

The Gunning’s Fog Index (or FOG) Readability Formula

$$ {\text{Grade}}\;{\text{Level}} = 0.4({\text{ASL}} + {\text{PHW}}), $$

where ASL is the average sentence length (i.e., number of words divided by the number of sentences) and PHW is the percentage of hard words. Short sentences written in plain English achieve a better score than long sentences written in complicated language. Requires a minimum of 100 sample words.

The FORCAST Readability Formula

$$ {\text{GL}} = 20-({\text{N}}/10), $$

where GL is the grade level and N is the number of monosyllabic words in the sample text.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zraick, R.I., Atcherson, S.R. & Ham, B.K. Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaires for Use with Persons with Swallowing Disorders. Dysphagia 27, 346–352 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-011-9373-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-011-9373-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation