The readability of online health information for L1 and L2 Australians: text-based and user-focused research

Pam Peters; Jan-Louis Kruger

doi:10.1515/text-2020-0041

Article

The readability of online health information for L1 and L2 Australians: text-based and user-focused research

Pam Peters
Pam Peters is an Emeritus Professor in Linguistics at Macquarie University, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Her research interests are in corpus linguistic approaches to lexicography, terminography and regional English usage, as author of the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) and the Cambridge Dictionary of English Grammar (2013). She co-directs the Varieties of English in the Indo-Pacific (VEIP) project, whose work will be published as Exploring the Ecology of World Englishes by Edinburgh University Press in 2021.
and Jan-Louis Kruger
Jan-Louis Kruger is Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie University. His research investigates language processing in multimodal contexts with a particular focus on subtitle reading using eye tracking. He also works on media accessibility and audiovisual translation and has published widely on research methodologies in this field. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Audiovisual Translation.

Published/Copyright: August 13, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Text & Talk Volume 41 Issue 5-6

Abstract

The readability of online health information involves several factors in communication, including textual factors in verbal messaging and demographics relating to the readership, both of which impact on access to health information for first language (L1) and second language (L2) individuals in the Australian community. This research aims to identify the issues inherent in health texts as well as different readers’ comprehension of the information in them. The paper focuses first on the readability of sample health texts, and the extent to which difficult elements can be identified by the standard readability measures (Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG), as well as psycholinguistically informed measures of reading ease developed by Co-Matrix for general (L1) and L2 readers: TERA and Coh-Metrix L2. Coh-Metrix L2 points to linguistic factors that particularly challenge L2 readers of health information. A complementary study using eye-tracking was carried out to investigate the reading behaviours of 30 L1 and L2 participants seeking information from a health website. Statistically significant differences were found between L1 and L2 participants in their reading patterns, with L2 readers working more slowly and less reliably through online information. The findings highlight the need for health communicators to embrace the greater reading challenges for L2 users of the Internet.

Keywords: eye-tracking; health information; L1 readers; L2 readers; psycholinguistic measures; readability measures; reading patterns

Corresponding author: Pam Peters, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia, E-mail: pam.peters@mq.edu.au

About the authors

Pam Peters

Pam Peters is an Emeritus Professor in Linguistics at Macquarie University, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Her research interests are in corpus linguistic approaches to lexicography, terminography and regional English usage, as author of the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) and the Cambridge Dictionary of English Grammar (2013). She co-directs the Varieties of English in the Indo-Pacific (VEIP) project, whose work will be published as Exploring the Ecology of World Englishes by Edinburgh University Press in 2021.

Jan-Louis Kruger

Jan-Louis Kruger is Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie University. His research investigates language processing in multimodal contexts with a particular focus on subtitle reading using eye tracking. He also works on media accessibility and audiovisual translation and has published widely on research methodologies in this field. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Audiovisual Translation.

Appendix

A pair of sample sentences from the texts analysed in Table 2, Figure 1 and Table 3

TEXT 1: from “ACTIVE” ,“Ten-Year Effects of the ACTIVE Cognitive Training Trial on Cognition and Everyday Functioning in Older Adults”

Therefore, our results regarding the effects of cognitive training interventions are likely robust. We note that the evaluation of the effect of booster training is limited because the two groups of interest (booster trained and non-booster trained) are not comparable.

TEXT 2: from “Defying Dementia” (New Scientist, April 2017)

When these types of shifts happen, or memory or cognitive problems begin to interfere with daily life, it’s time to consult a doctor. Healthcare professionals have tools to help catch problems early.

Text 3: from “Fifth Plan: The Fifth National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan”

Examples of supporting on-going and active involvement of consumers and carers include collaboration on design and planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and actions, as well as capacity building among organisations that support consumer and carer participation and recognition of the contribution of consumers and carers to the Fifth Plan implementation supported by paid participation. A strength of the National Mental Health Strategy has been the routine development of plans within the states and territories over the last two decades that seek to drive improvements in mental health service delivery and mental health outcomes.

References

Australian Digital Inclusion Index. 2018. Available at: https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Australian-digital-inclusion-index-2018.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Beaunoyer, Elizabeth, Marianne Arsenault, Ann Lomanowska & Mattieu Guitton. 2017. Understanding online health information: Evaluation, tools and strategies. Patient Education and Counseling 100. 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.028.Search in Google Scholar

Bergstrom, Jennifer & Andrew Schall (eds.). 2014. Eye-tracking in user experience design. Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann.Search in Google Scholar

Berzak, Yevgeni, Boris Katz& Roger Levy. 2018. Assessing language proficiency from eye movements in reading. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics N18-1180.10.18653/v1/N18-1180Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug. 1988. Variation across spoken and written language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Clerehan, Rosemary, Rachelle Buchbinder & Jane Moodie. 2005. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information. Health Education Research 20(3). 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg123.Search in Google Scholar

Collins-Thompson, Kevyn. 2014. Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of current and future research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165(2). 97–135.https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.165.2.01col.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, Scott, Jerry Greenfield & Danielle McNamara. 2008. Assessing readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly 42. 475–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, Scott, David Allen & Danielle McNamara. 2011. Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language 23(1). 84–101.Search in Google Scholar

Diviani, Nicola, Bas van den Putte, Corine Meppelink & Julia van Weert. 2016. Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information. Patient Education and Counseling 99. 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.007.Search in Google Scholar

Elder, Catherine, Melissa Barber, Margaret Staples, Osborne Richard, Rosemary Clerehan & Rachelle Buchbinder. 2012. Assessing health literacy: A new domain for collaboration between language testers and health professionals. Language Assessment Quarterly 9(3). 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.627751.Search in Google Scholar

Flesch, Rudolf. 1945. Marks of readable style. Journalism Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769904502200314.Search in Google Scholar

Flaounas, Ilias, Omar Ali, Thomas Lansdall-Welfare, Rijl de Bi, Nick Mosdell, Justin Lewis & Nello Christianini. 2013. Digital Journalism 1(1). 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2012.714928.Search in Google Scholar

Forrest, Jim & Justine Dandy. 2017. Proficiency in English, linguistic shift and ethnic capital: An intergenerational analysis of non-English speaking background immigrant groups in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39 (2). 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1315949.Search in Google Scholar

Gemoets, Darren, Greciela Rosemblat, Tony Tse & Robert Logan. 2004. Assessing the readability of consumer health information: An exploratory study. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 107.Search in Google Scholar

Giles, Timothy & Brian Still. 2005. A syntactic approach to readability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35(1). 47–70. https://doi.org/10.2190/phuc-gy8l-jrle-vmnn.Search in Google Scholar

Van Gog, Tamara & Halszka Jarodzka. 2013. Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes in computerised learning environments. In Roger Azevedo & Vincent, Aleven (eds.). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies, 143–156 . New York: Springer International Handbooks of Education.10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_10Search in Google Scholar

Jarodzka, Halszka, Kenneth Holmqvist & Hans Gruber. 2017. Eye tracking in educational science. Journal of Eye Movement Research 10(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.10.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Kauchak, David & Gondy Leroy. 2016. Moving beyond readability metrics for health-related text simplification. IT Professional 18(3). 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/mitp.2016.50.Search in Google Scholar

Kincaid, Peter. 1975. Developing new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Memphis: Chief of Naval Training: Naval Air Station.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Chenxi, Dan Wang, Chaojie Liu, Junna Jiang,Xuemei Wang Haihong Chen, Xin Ju & Xinping Zhang. 2020. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Family Medicine and Community Health 8. e000351. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2020-000351.Search in Google Scholar

McEnery, Antony & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511981395Search in Google Scholar

McLaughlin, G. Harry. 1969. SMOG grading – a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12(8). 639–646.Search in Google Scholar

McNamara, Danielle & Walter Kintsch. 1996. Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22. 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975.Search in Google Scholar

McNamara, Danielle, Zhiquiang Cai, Arthur Graesser & Philip McCarthy. 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511894664Search in Google Scholar

Nenkov, Ani, Jieun Chae, Annie Louis & Emily Pitler. 2010. Structural features for predicting the linguistic quality of text. In Emiel Krahmer & Mariet Theune (eds.). Empirical methods in NLG.LNAI 5790, 222–241. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-15573-4_12Search in Google Scholar

Peters, Pam, Adam, Smith, Yasmin Funk & John Boyages. 2016. Language, terminology and the readability of online cancer information. Medical Humanities 42(1). 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2015-010766.Search in Google Scholar

Plakans, Lia & Zeynep Bilki. 2016. Cohesion features in ESL reading: Comparing beginning, intermediate and advanced textbooks. Reading in a Foreign Language 28(1). 79–100.Search in Google Scholar

Scott, Mike. 2013. Wordsmith tools. Available at: https:/lexically.net/downloads/version7/HTML/index.html.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Adam & Aleisha Davis. 2018. Disambiguating the use of common terms across related medical fields: The problem of intervention. Lexicography 4(1). 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-018-0038-x.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Malcolm & Richard Taffler. 1992. Readability and understandability: different measures of the textual complexity of accounting narrative. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 5(4). 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579210019549.Search in Google Scholar

Todd, Laura & Laurie Hoffman-Goetz. 2011. Predicting health literacy among English-as-a-second-language older Chinese immigrant women to Canada: Comprehension of colon cancer prevention information. Journal of Cancer Education 24. 326–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0162-2.Search in Google Scholar

Ure, Jean. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation. In George Perrin & John Trim (eds.). Applications of linguistics, 443–452. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Lih-Wern, Michael Miller, Michael Schmitt & Frances Wen. 2013. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials; application, results and recommendations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 9(5). 593–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-04-02

Accepted: 2021-07-13

Published Online: 2021-08-13

Published in Print: 2021-10-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0041

Keywords for this article

eye-tracking; health information; L1 readers; L2 readers; psycholinguistic measures; readability measures; reading patterns