Some overlooked aspects of consent form readability

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 5-9

  Hochhauser, Mark ^a  

^a NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER; EDUCATION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTERS; CONSENT FORMS; EDUCATION; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 0031216053     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3564121     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, et al.: Adult Literacy in America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
2. Mailloux SL, Johnson ME, Fisher DG, et al.: How reliable is computerized assessment of readability? Computers in Nursing 1995; 13(5): 221-5.
3. Klare, GR: Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly 1974-1975; 1: 62-102.
4. Prose: the readability analyst. Reference manual. Boulder, Col.: MicroBrothers Software, 1988-1991.
5. Tarnowski KJ, Allen DM., Mayhall C, et al.: Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics 1990; 85(1): 59-62.
6. Loverde ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL: Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1989; 4: 410-12.
7. Goldstein AO, Frasier R, Curtis P, et al.: Consent form readability in university-sponsored research. Journal of Family Practice 1996; 42(6): 606-11.
8. Zakaluk BL, Samuels SJ, eds.: Readability. Its past, present and future. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1988.
9. Davison A, Green GM, eds.: Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
10. Dobrin D: A new grammar checker. Computers and the Humanities 1990; 24: 67-80.
11. Neuman M: RightWriter 3.1. Computers and the Humanities 1991; 25: 55-8.
12. Johnson E: PowerEdit. Computers and the Humanities 1992; 26: 309-11.
13. Jolly BT, Scott JL, Sanford SM: Simplification of emergency department discharge instructions improves patient comprehension. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1995; 26(4): 443-6.
14. Davis TC, Bocchini JA, Fredrickson D, et al.: Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets. Pediatrics 1996; 97(6): 804-10.
15. Meade CD, Byrd JC, Lee ML: Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking. American Journal of Public Health 1989; 79(10): 1411-2.
16. Michiellute R, Bahnson J, et al.: The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. Journal of Cancer Education 1992; 7(3): 251-60.
17. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE: Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB 1990; 12(3): 1-5.
18. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane MA: Institutional review board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 1992; 304(6): 348-51.
19. Susman EJ, Dorn LD, Fletcher JC: Participation in biomedical research: the consent process as viewed by children, adolescents, young adults, and physicians. Journal of Pediatrics 1992; 121: 547-52.
20. Peterson BT, Clancy SJ, Champion K, et al.: Improving readability of consent forms: what the computers may not tell you. IRB 1992; 14(6): 6-8.
21. Redish JC, Selzer J: The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication 1985 (4th quarter): 46-52.
22. Waggoner WC, Mayo DM: Who understands? A survey of 25 words or phrases commonly used in proposed clinical research consent forms. IRB 1995; 17(1): 6-9.
23. Waggoner WC, Sherman BB: Who understands? II: A survey of 27 words, phrases, or symbols used in proposed clinical research consent forms. IRB 1996; 18(3): 8-10.