An Exploratory Study of Older Adults' Comprehension of Printed Cancer Information: Is Readability a Key Factor?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Printed cancer information often is written at or beyond high school reading levels, despite lower average literacy abilities of the public. The objectives of this exploratory study were twofold: (1) to evaluate older adults' comprehension of breast (BC), prostate (PC), and colorectal (CC) cancer information; and (2) to determine if comprehension of BC, PC, and CC information varies according to text readability. Comprehension of printed cancer resources was evaluated with 44 community-dwelling older adults using the Cloze procedure and recall questions. Participants' comprehension scores were compared with Simple Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG) readability scores (<grade 13 vs. grade 13+). Overall, older adults had satisfactory comprehension of cancer information as measured by Cloze (.86 +/- .01) and recall (.71 +/- .02). For CC information written at grade 13, however, a significant negative correlation between readability and Cloze comprehension was found (r(s) = -.44, SE = .17, p = .019), indicating poorer participant comprehension at higher readability levels. Comprehension of BC or PC information did not vary by readability level. Though readability plays a role in older adults' understanding of cancer information, cancer type and content are also important factors that influence comprehension. Use of plain language is recommended for CC resources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it