Assessing readability and comprehensibility of web-based cancer information

Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 300-312

  Ta Min, Rachelle ^a   Arocha, Jose F ^a   Hoffman Goetz, Laurie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PROSTATE CANCER; READING; RECALL; SEMANTICS; STANDARDIZATION; THEORETICAL STUDY; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 35648954077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1479649X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Household Internet Survey. Statistics Canada, July 2004. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040708/d040708a.htm.
2. Jimison HB, Sher PP. Advances in Presenting Health Information to Patients in Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications, Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA (eds), Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 334-61.
3. Kintsch W. Text Comprehension, Memory, and Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
4. Bovair S, Kieras DE. A Guide to Propositional Analysis for Research on Technical Prose in Understanding Expository Text: A Theoretical a Practical Handbook for Analyzing Explanatory Text, Britton BK, Black JB (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985, pp. 315-62.
5. Kintsch W, Vipond D. Reading Comprehension and Readability in Educational Practice and Psychological Theory in Perspectives on Memory Research, LG Nilsson (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977, pp. 329-66.
6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the Internet. Journal of Cancer Education 2004; 19: 117-22.
7. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine 2006; 31: 67-87.
8. Patel VL, Arocha JF, Diermeier M, Greenes RA, Shortliffe EH. Methods of cognitive analysis to support the design and evaluation of biomedical systems: the case of clinical practice guidelines. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2001; 34: 52-66.
9. Hoskyn M, Swanson HL. The relationship between working memory and writing in younger and older adults. Reading & Writing 2003; 16: 759-84.
10. Kemper S, Sumner A. The structure of verbal abilities in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging 2001; 16: 312-22.
11. Kintsch W, Keenan JM. Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology 1973; 5: 257-74.
12. GraphViz, Open source computer softwar, 2005. http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/.
13. Meade C, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counseling 1991; 17: 153-58.
14. Meade C, Byrd JC. Patient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. American Journal of Public Health 1989; 79: 1204-6.
15. Romano R. Readability in Cancer Communications: Methods, Examples and Resources for Improving the Readability of Cancer Messages and Materials. US. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1979.
16. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
17. Zwaan RA, Graesser AC. Reading goals and situation models: a commentary on Glenberg Mathew. Psycology, 1993; 4: 5.
18. Foltz PW, Kintsch W, Landauer TK. The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 1998; 5: 285-307.
19. Landauer TK, Foltz P, Laham D. Introduction to latent semantic analygis. Discourse Processes, 1998; 25: 259-84.
20. Thagard P, Verbeurgt K. Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 1997; 22: 1-24.