, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 346–352 | Cite as

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

  • Richard I. Zraick
  • Samuel R. Atcherson
  • Bonnie K. Ham
Original Article


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.


Readability Patient-reported outcome measures Swallowing Dysphagia deglutition Questionnaires Swallowing-related quality of life Dysphagia-related quality of life Health literacy Deglutition disorders 


  1. 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. 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
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fung CH, Hays RD. Prospects and challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1297–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss BD, Coyne C. Communicating with patients who cannot read. New Engl J Med. 1997;337:272–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freda M. The readability of American Academy of Pediatrics patient education brochures. J Ped Health Care. 2005;19:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubay WH. The principles of readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (n.d.). Healthy People 2010. Available at Accessed 19 Sep 2010.
  12. 12.
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Health literacy. Available at Accessed 19 Sep 2010.
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Breese P, Burman W. Readability of notice of privacy forms used by major health care institutions. JAMA. 2005;293:1593–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 25.
    Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gunning R. The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in healthcare. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1:7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Redish J. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Doc. 2000;24:132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McCall WA, Crabbs LM. Standard test lessons in reading. New York: Teachers College; 1961.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McHugh RK, Behar E. Readability of self-report measures of depression and anxiety. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77:1100–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991;17:153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Klare G. A second look at the validity of readability formulas. J Read Behav. 1976;8:129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27:281–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH. A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1036–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard I. Zraick
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samuel R. Atcherson
    • 1
  • Bonnie K. Ham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and University of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Audiology and Speech PathologyUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations