Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 7/2009

Open Access 01-09-2009

Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys

Authors: Sylvia H. Paz, Honghu Liu, Marie N. Fongwa, Leo S. Morales, Ron D. Hays

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate readability of seven commonly used health-related quality of life instruments: SF-36, HUI, EQ-5D, QWB-SA, HALex, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and the NEI-VFQ-25.

Methods

The Flesch–Kincaid (F–K) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulae were used to estimate readability for every item in each measure.

Results

The percentage of items that require more than 5 years of formal schooling according to F–K was 50 for the EQ-5D, 53 for the SF-36, 80 for the VFQ-25, 85 for the QWB-SA, 100 for the HUI, HALex, and the MLHFQ. The percentage of items deemed harder than “easy” according to FRE was 50 for the SF-36, 67 for the EQ-5D, 79 for the QWB-SA, 80 for the VFQ-25, 100 for the HUI, HALex, and the MLHFQ.

Conclusions

All seven surveys have a substantial number of items with high readability levels that may not be appropriate for the general population.
Literature
1.
2.
Smith, H., Gooding, S., et al. (1998). Evaluation of readability and accuracy of information leaflets in general practice for patients with asthma. BMJ, 317, 264–265.PubMed
3.
Carey, S., Low, S., et al. (1997). Adult literacy in Britain. London: Office for National Statistics.
4.
5.
Gazmararian, J. A., Baker, D. W., et al. (1999). Health literacy among medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(6), 545–551.CrossRef
6.
Rudd, R. E. (2007). Health literacy skills of US adults. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(Suppl 1), S8–S18.PubMed
7.
Morrow, G. R. (1980). How readable are subject consent forms? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 244(1), 56–58.CrossRef
8.
Tarnowski, K. J., Allen, D. M., et al. (1990). Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics, 85(1), 58–62.PubMed
9.
Meade, C. D., & Howser, D. M. (1992). Consent forms: How to determine and improve their readability. Oncology Nursing Forum, 19(10), 1523–1528.PubMed
10.
Ott, B. B., & Hardie, T. L. (1995). Readability of written materials: Implications for critical care nurses. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 14(6), 328–334.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ott, B. B., & Hardie, T. L. (1997). Readability of advance directive documents. Image—The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 29(1), 53–57.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Calderon, J. L., & Beltran, R. A. (2004). Pitfalls in health communication: Healthcare policy, institution, structure, and process. Medscape General Medicine, 6(1), 9.PubMed
13.
Calderon, J. L., Zadshir, A., et al. (2004). A survey of kidney disease and risk-factor information on the world wide web. Medscape General Medicine, 6(4), 3.PubMed
14.
Hunter, J. L. (2005). Cervical cancer educational pamphlets: Do they miss the mark for Mexican immigrant women’s needs? Cancer Control, 12(Suppl 2), 42–50.PubMed
15.
Meade, C. D. (2005). Cancer, culture and literacy: Critical next steps in improving care for diverse populations. Cancer Control, 12(Suppl 2), 4–5.PubMed
16.
Calderon, J. L., Morales, L. S., et al. (2006). Variation in the readability of items within surveys. American Journal of Medical Quality, 21(1), 49–56.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Estey, A., Musseau, A., et al. (1991). Comprehension levels of patients reading health information. Patient Education Counseling, 18, 165–169. (1996), 30, 205–208.
18.
Davis, T. C., Crouch, M. A., et al. (1990). The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. Journal of Family Practice, 31(5), 533–538.PubMed
19.
Miller, B., & Bodie, M. (1994). Determination of reading comprehension level for effective patient health-education materials. Nursing Research, 43(2), 118–119.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Freda, M. C., Damus, K., et al. (1999). Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93(5 Pt 1), 771–774.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Rogers, E. S., Spalding, S. L., et al. (2008). Are patient-administered attention deficit hyperactivity disorder scales suitable for adults? Journal of Attention Disorders. doi:10.​1177/​1087054708323017​
22.
Wallace, L. S., Keenum, A. J., et al. (2007). Readability and cognitive complexity of self-administered opioid assessment screening tools. Journal of Opioid Management, 3(6), 338–344.PubMed
23.
Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., et al. (2007). US Norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care, 45, 1162–1170.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Hays, R. D., Kim S., et al. (2009). Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores. 2009, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). 1098-3015/09/. Value in health.
26.
Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., et al. (1993). The RAND 36-Item health survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2(3), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., et al. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., et al. (2003). The health utilities index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Andresen, E. M., Rothenberg, B. M., et al. (1998). Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the quality of well-being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Medical Care, 36(9), 1349–1360.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., et al. (1998). The quality of well-being scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(6), 509–520.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Sieber, W., Groessl, E., et al. (2004). Quality of well-being self-administered (QWB-SA) Scale. User’s manual. Health outcomes assessment program. San Diego: University of California.
34.
Erickson, P., Wilson, R., et al. (1995). Years of healthy life. Healthy People 2000 Statistical Notes, 7, 1–15.PubMed
35.
Livingston, E. H., & Ko, C. Y. (2002). Use of the health and activities limitation index as a measure of quality of life in obesity. Obesity Research, 10(8), 824–832.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Asada, Y. (2005). Assessment of the health of Americans: The average health-related quality of life and its inequality across individuals and groups. Population Health Metrics, 3, 7.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Rector, T. S., & Cohn, J. N. (1992). Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: Reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. American Heart Journal, 124(4), 1017–1025.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Rector, T. S., Kubo, S. H., et al. (1993). Validity of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire as a measure of therapeutic response to enalapril or placebo. American Journal of Cardiology, 71(12), 1106–1107.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Rector, T. S., Anand, I. S., et al. (2006). Relationships between clinical assessments and patients’ perceptions of the effects of heart failure on their quality of life. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 12(2), 87–92.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., et al. (1998). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116(11), 1496–1504.PubMed
41.
Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., et al. (2001). Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119(7), 1050–1058.PubMed
42.
Meade, C., & Smith, C. (1991). Readability formulas: Cautions and criteria. Patient education and counseling, 17, 153–158.CrossRef
43.
Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education and Behavior, 33(3), 352–373.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Meade, C. D., Byrd, J. C., et al. (1989). Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking. American Journal of Public Health, 79(10), 1411–1412.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language and Communication, 21, 285–301.CrossRef
46.
Bradley, B., Singleton, M., et al. (1994). Readability of patient information leaflets on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 19(1), 7–15.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Doak, L. G., Doak, C. C., et al. (1996). Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncology Nursing Forum, 23(8), 1305–1312.PubMed
48.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201–219.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys
Authors
Sylvia H. Paz
Honghu Liu
Marie N. Fongwa
Leo S. Morales
Ron D. Hays
Publication date
01-09-2009
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9506-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2009

Quality of Life Research 7/2009 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Quality of life from the perspective of adolescents with cerebral palsy: “I just think I’m a normal kid, I just happen to have a disability”

OriginalPaper

Reliability and validity of an instrument for assessing patients’ perceptions about medications for diabetes: the PAM-D

Brief Communication

Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity

OriginalPaper

PatientViewpoint: a website for patient-reported outcomes assessment

OriginalPaper

Building PROMIS item banks: librarians as co-investigators

OriginalPaper

The concurrent validity and responsiveness of the health utilities index (HUI 3) among patients with advanced HIV/AIDS