The Gobbledygook in Online Parent-Focused Information about Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online parent-focused informational resources play a vital step in parent decision-making about initiating child and adolescent mental health care, but their usefulness may depend on how easily the resource content can be understood. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine the readability and reliability of parent-focused mental health resources provided on Canadian websites. After meeting inclusion criteria, 50 documents retrieved during the search in September 2016 from websites using online health information searching strategies that would be typically employed by parents underwent analysis. Document readability was assessed using Health Canada recommended instruments: Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and the Flesch Reading-Ease scale. Reliability was assessed using Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode). Our analysis revealed that all included documents exceeded the 8th grade reading level. The mean ± SD readability scores were SMOG 11.65 ± 1.10 and FKGL 10.03 ± 1.49. Reading-ease scores showed that 42% (n = 21) of the documents were "Difficult" to read. Factorial ANOVA revealed no significant difference in readability across mental health topic areas or organizational sectors (p = > 0.05). Twenty-four percent of documents came from sites with HONcode certification. Findings suggest that almost all child and adolescent mental health information that would typically be found online by parents in Canada had readability scores that were too high for average parents to read and exceeded Health Canada recommended reading levels. Being able to locate resources online can be significantly precluded if a parent cannot understand and use information to mobilize them to accessing mental health care for their families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".