Readability of Information Related to the Parenting of a Child With a Cleft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many parents look to various sources for information about parenting when their child has a cleft lip and/or palate. More than 8 million Americans perform health-related searches every day on the World Wide Web. Furthermore, a significant number of them report feeling "overwhelmed" by the language and content of the information. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the readability of information related to parenting a child with cleft lip and/or palate. It was hypothesized that the readability of such materials would be at a level higher than 6th grade. METHODS: In February of 2012, a Web-based search was conducted using the search engine Google for the terms "parenting cleft lip and palate." RESULTS: A total of 15 websites, 7 books, and 8 booklets/factsheets (N=30) entered the readability analysis. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Fog Scale Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index scores were calculated. The reading level of the websites and books ranged from 8th to 9th and 9th to10th grade, respectively. The average reading level of the booklets/factsheets was 10th grade. Overall, the mean readability of the media resources analyzed was considered "hard to read." No statistically significant mean difference was found for the readability level across websites, books, and booklets/factsheets (Kruskal-Wallis test, significance level .05). CONCLUSIONS: When considering websites, books, booklets, and factsheets analyzed, the average readability level was between 8th and 10th grade. With the US national reading level average at 8th grade and the general recommendation that health-related information be written at a 6th grade level, many parents may find the text they are reading too difficult to comprehend. Therefore, many families might be missing out on the opportunity to learn parenting practices that foster optimal psychosocial development of their children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".