How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.

We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincai...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lisa P Lagassé, Rajiv N Rimal, Katherine C Smith, J Douglas Storey, Elizabeth Rhoades, Daniel J Barnett, Saad B Omer, Jonathan Links
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3201941?pdf=render
id doaj-98a2b4b1c02c46eeb26a029cf5f61dd0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-98a2b4b1c02c46eeb26a029cf5f61dd02020-11-25T01:48:14ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032011-01-01610e2358310.1371/journal.pone.0023583How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.Lisa P LagasséRajiv N RimalKatherine C SmithJ Douglas StoreyElizabeth RhoadesDaniel J BarnettSaad B OmerJonathan LinksWe assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3201941?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lisa P Lagassé
Rajiv N Rimal
Katherine C Smith
J Douglas Storey
Elizabeth Rhoades
Daniel J Barnett
Saad B Omer
Jonathan Links
spellingShingle Lisa P Lagassé
Rajiv N Rimal
Katherine C Smith
J Douglas Storey
Elizabeth Rhoades
Daniel J Barnett
Saad B Omer
Jonathan Links
How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Lisa P Lagassé
Rajiv N Rimal
Katherine C Smith
J Douglas Storey
Elizabeth Rhoades
Daniel J Barnett
Saad B Omer
Jonathan Links
author_sort Lisa P Lagassé
title How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
title_short How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
title_full How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
title_fullStr How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
title_full_unstemmed How accessible was information about H1N1 flu? Literacy assessments of CDC guidance documents for different audiences.
title_sort how accessible was information about h1n1 flu? literacy assessments of cdc guidance documents for different audiences.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2011-01-01
description We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3201941?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT lisaplagasse howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT rajivnrimal howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT katherinecsmith howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT jdouglasstorey howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT elizabethrhoades howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT danieljbarnett howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT saadbomer howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT jonathanlinks howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
_version_ 1725012249716719616