This paper describes the methods used to develop and evaluate diabetes education material for American Indians and Alaska Natives living in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Reading skills of individuals and readability of a sample of existing diabetic education material were measured. Using the Wide Range Achievement Test to measure reading skills, the authors found that 66% of the sample read at a 5th "grade" or higher level. Readability of a sample of available diabetic education material was found to be, on average, at the 10th "grade" level. Diabetes education booklets targeted to a 5th to 7th "grade" level were developed and assessed for acceptability and compre hension. Final evaluation, using the cloze procedure, showed that 62 % of the target audience under stood the messages in the booklets. A comprehensive assessment process was found to be useful in developing effective diabetes education material for Indian communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Drury T., Danchik K., Harris M.Sociodemographic characteristics of adult diabetics. In: National Diabetes Data Group. Diabetes in America: diabetes data compiled 1984. Bethesda, Md: Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1985; DHHS publication no. (NIH) 85-1468.
2.
Diet and exercise in noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus [National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement] . Diabetes Care1987;10:639-44.
Meade CD, Byrd JCPatient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. Am J Public Health1989;79:204-6.
5.
Doak L., Doak C.Patient comprehension profiles: recent findings and strategies. Patient Counseling Health Educ1980;2:101-6.
6.
Vivian AS, Robertson EJ III.Readability of patient education materials. Clin Ther1980;3:129-36.
7.
McNeal B., Salisbury Z., Baumgardner P., Wheeler F.Comprehension assessment of diabetes education program participants . Diabetes Care1984; 7:232-35.
8.
Gohdes D.Diabetes in American Indians: a growing problem. Diabetes Care1986;9:609-13.
9.
Freeman WL, Hosey GM, Diehr P., Gohdes D.Diabetes in American Indians of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Diabetes Care1989;12:282-88.
10.
Diabetes booklet series for American Indians. Omaha, Neb: Swanson Center for Nutrition, 1980.
11.
Nuxalk food and nutrition handbook. Vancouver, BC: Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, 1984.
12.
Cadenhead K.Reading level: a metaphor that shapes practice . Phi Delta Kappan1987;68:436-41.
13.
Wide range achievement test (WRAT). Wilmington, Del: Jastek Association, 1984.
14.
Grammatik IV. San Francisco: Reference Software.
15.
Kincaid JP, et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, FOG count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel . Springfield, Va: National Technical Information Service, 1975.
16.
Gunning R.The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952.
17.
Flesh RFThe art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
18.
Fry EBFry's readability graph: clarifications, validity and extension to level 17 . J Reading1977;21:242-52.
19.
McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading1969; 12:639-46.
20.
Klare GRAssessing readability. Reading Res Q1974;10:62-102.
Leichter S. , Nieman J., Moore R., Collins P., Rhodes A.Readability of self-care instructional pamphlets for diabetic patients. Diabetes Care1981; 4:627-30.
23.
Eaton ML, Holloway RLPatient comprehension of written drug information. Am J Hosp Pharm1980;37:240-43.
24.
Rosenstock I.Understanding and enhancing patient compliance with diabetic regimens. Diabetes Care1985 ;8:610-16.
25.
Manning D.Writing readable health messages. Public Health Rep1981; 96:464-65.
26.
Fry E.Writeability: the principles of writing for increased comprehension. In: Zakaluk BL, Samuels SJ, eds. Readability: its past, present and future . Newark, Del: International Reading Association, 1988.
27.
Farrell-Miller P., Gentry P.How effective are your patient education materials? Guidelines for developing and evaluating written educational materials [Professional Development]. Diabetes Educ1989;15:418-22.
28.
Irwin JW, Davis CAAssessing readability: the checklist approach. J Reading1980;24:124-30.
29.
Zakaluk BL, Samuels SJToward a new approach to predicting text comprehensibility. In: Zakaluk BL, Samuels SJ, eds. Readability: its past, present and future . Newark, Del: International Reading Association, 1988.
Pretesting in health communications: methods, examples and resources for improving health messages and materials. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, Jan 1984; NIH publication 84-1493.
32.
Hafner L.Cloze procedure. J Reading1966;9:415-21.
33.
Taylor WSCloze procedure. A new test for measuring readability. Journalism Q1953;30:415-33.
34.
Bormouth J.The cloze procedure: literacy in the classroom. In National Conference on Research in English. Help for the reading teacher: new directions for research. Washington, DCNational Institute of Education (DHEW), March, 1975.
Komoski PK, Woodward A.The continuing need for learner verification and revision of textual material . In: Jonassen DH, ed. The technology of text: principles for structuring, designing and displaying text. Vol. 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1985.
40.
Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JHTeaching patients with low literacy skill. Philadelphia : JB Lippincott, 1985.
41.
World Federation of Public Health Association.Health education [Information for action issue paper] . Washington, DC: American Public Health Associaton, January 1986:19-27.
42.
Lowry D., Marr T.A two-culture validation study of clozentrophy as a measure of intercultural communication (ERIC doc. No. 089 387). Presented at Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association; April 1974; New Orleans.
43.
Freeman WL, Robbins CMCommunity-oriented patient education: AIDS brochures and consent forms for HIV testing. Presented at Annual Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group; April 1989; San Francisco.
