Effectiveness of a writing improvement intervention program on the readability of the research informed consent document

Journal of Investigative Medicine

Volumn 47, Issue 9, 1999, Pages 468-476

  Philipson, Sandra J ^a,e   Doyle, Mary Anne ^b   Nightingale, Charles ^c   Bow, Laurine ^c   Mather, Jeff ^c   Philipson, Elliot H ^d  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c HARTFORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e Educational Department   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL CAPACITY; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; WRITING;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

COGNITION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; READING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; WRITING;

EID: 0033227391     PISSN: 17088267     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kalstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look a the results of the national adult literacy survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993.
2. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Protecting research subjects, institutional review board guidebook. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993.
3. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane M. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 1992;304:348-51.
4. Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram S, Nightingale C, Philipson E. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and process-ability to effect change. J Investig Med 1995;43:459-67.
5. Irwin JW, Davis CJ. Assisting readability: the checklist approach. J Reading 1980;24:124-30.
6. Irwin JW. Teaching reading comprehension processes. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
7. Fry E. Fry's readability graph: clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. J Reading 1977;21:242-52.
8. Meyer BJF, Marsiske MWS. Text processing variables predict the readability of everyday documents read by older adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 1993;28(3):235-49.
9. McGinley W. The role of reading and writing while composing form sources. Reading Research Quarterly 1992;27:227-48.
10. McGinley W, Tierney RJ. Traversing the topical landscape, reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communications 1989;64:243-69.
11. Vacca R, Vacca J. Content area reading. 3rd ed. Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1989.
12. Reder LM. The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: a critical review. Rev Educational Res 1980;50:5-53.
13. Ahmann JS, Glock MD. Evaluating pupil growth: principles of tests and measurements. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975.
14. Meade CD, Smith, CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counseling 1991;17:153-8.
15. Tamowski K, Allen D, Mayhall C, Kelly P. Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics 1990; 85:58-62.
16. Hopper K, Lambe HA, Shirk SJ. Readability of informed consent forms for use with iodinated contrast media. Radiology 1993;187(1):2;9-283.
17. Kain ZN, Wang SM, Caramico LA, Hofstadter M, Mayes LC. Parental desire for perioperative information and informed consent: a two-phase study. Anesth Analg 1997;84(2):299-306.
18. Taub H, Baker MT, Starr J. Informed consent for research: effects of readability, patient age, and education. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:601-6.
19. Doak CB, Leonard G, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1985.
20. White DR, Muss HB, Michielutte R, Jackson DV, Richards F II, Stuart J, Spurr C. Informed consent: patient information forms in chemotherapy trials. Am J Clin Oncol 1980;7:183-90.
21. Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980;244:56-8.