The readability of four diazepam patient labeling documents was studied. Four patient labeling documents were prepared on diazepam's uses, side effects, adverse reactions, and potential for inducing dependency. The materials contained the same basic information but differed in vocabulary and complexity of sentence strueture. A questionnaire was administered to 199 College students, or nonstudents who had completed at least one year of College, who were asked to read an excerpt from one of the four documents. The questionnaire included a vocabulary test on 10 medical terms and a section for rating aecuraey, clarity, appeal, and readability of the materials. The documents also were analyzed independently by two judges using 13 readability formulas. The study group showed wide Variation in understanding of medical terms; the terms were correctly identified by the majority of persons, with the exception of "pulmonary" which was defined correctly by only 28%. Ratings for aecuraey and quality of writing were similar for all four documents. For the other three factors—interest value, positive evaluation, and adult-readability—the easiest-to-read excerpt was rated lowest by the group. For the "adult readability" factor, the most-difficult-to-read Version was rated highest, The relative rank assigned the documents was similar for all the readability tests, but the readability estimates for a given document varied by as much as 12.6 grade levels. The study group's estimates of readability were variably higher or lower than the readability test's estimates. The study indicates that there are Problems with relying on readability scores for assessment of difficulty and that patient labeling should be written for audience acceptance rather than for favorable reading scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morris et al. (1980) studied this question.