Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information
Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Brach, Cindy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shoemaker, Sarah J.;Wolf, Michael S.;Brach, Cindy
目的：开发一种可靠有效的工具来评估印刷和视听材料的可理解性和可操作性。方法：我们从现有的工具/指南中编制条目，由专家小组评估其表面/内容的有效性。我们完成了四轮信度测试，并与消费者进行了结构效度和可读性评估。结果：专家认为PEMAT项目的表面/内容是有效的。使用未接受过PEMAT培训的评分员进行了四轮可靠性测试和改进。协议在多轮谈判中都有所改善。最终的PEMAT符合Kappa的中等一致性(平均K=0.57)和GWET的AC1的高度一致性(平均=0.74)。内部一致性很强(α=0.71；平均条目-总相关=0.62)。对于构建与消费者的验证(n=47)，我们发现可操作的材料和不能操作的材料在理解分数(76%比63%，p<；0.05)和评级(8.9比7.7，p<；0.05)方面存在显著差异。在可理解性方面，两个主题中只有一个在消费者数字得分上存在显著差异。在可操作性方面，PEMAT得分与消费者测试结果呈显著正相关，但与可理解性没有相关性。然而，年级水平与消费者测试结果和PEMAT得分之间存在强烈的负相关。结论：PEMAT具有很强的内部一致性、可靠性和结构效度证据。实践意义：PEMAT。可以帮助专业人员判断材料的质量(可在以下网址获得：http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat).(C)2014爱思唯尔爱尔兰有限公司。保留所有权利。
Objective: To develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess the understandability and actionability of print and audiovisual materials.Methods: We compiled items from existing instruments/guides that the expert panel assessed for face/content validity. We completed four rounds of reliability testing, and produced evidence of construct validity with consumers and readability assessments.Results: The experts deemed the PEMAT items face/content valid. Four rounds of reliability testing and refinement were conducted using raters untrained on the PEMAT. Agreement improved across rounds. The final PEMAT showed moderate agreement per Kappa (Average K=0.57) and strong agreement per Gwet's AC1 (Average = 0.74). Internal consistency was strong (alpha = 0.71; Average Item-Total Correlation = 0.62). For,construct validation with consumers (n = 47), we found significant differences between actionable and poorly-actionable materials in comprehension scores (76% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) and ratings (8.9 vs. 7.7,p < 0.05). For understandability, there was a significant difference for only one of two topics on consumer numeric scores. For actionability, there were significant positive correlations between PEMAT scores and consumer-testing results, but no relationship for understandability. There were, however, strong, negative correlations between grade-level and both consumer-testing results and PEMAT scores.Conclusions: The PEMAT demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability, and evidence of construct validity.Practice implications: The PEMAT. can help professionals judge the quality of materials (available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.