On the Readability of Surgical Consent Forms

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 302, Issue 16, 1980, Pages 900-902

  Grundner, T M ^a  

^a Marymount California University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; SURGERY; THERAPY;

EID: 0018843826     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198004173021606     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Salgo v. Stanford University, 317 P2d 170 (Cal. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1957).
2. Slater v. Baker and Stapleton, C.B. 95 Eng. Rep. 860 (1767).
3. Katz J. Informed consent in the therapeutic relationship: law and ethics. In: Reich WT, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Free Press, 1978: 770-4.
4. Pratt v. Davis, 224 Ill. 300, 79 NE 562 (1906).
5. Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 NW 12 (1905).
6. Rolater v. Strain, 39 Okla. 572, 137 Pac. 96 (1913).
7. Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125 (1914).
8. Canterbury v. Spence, et al., 464 F.2nd 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
9. Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 34d 229, 104 Cal. Rptr. 505, 502 P2d 1 (1972).
10. Grundner T.M. Two formulas for determining the readability of subject consent forms. Am Psychol. 1978; 33:773-775.
11. Fry E.A. A readability formula that saves time. J Read. 1968; 11:513-6, 575-8.
12. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32:221-233.
13. Vaccarino J.M. Consent, informed consent and the consent form. N Engl J Med. 1978; 298:455.
14. Gray B.H. Human subjects in medical experimentation: a sociological study of the conduct and regulation of clinical research. New York: John Wiley, 1975.