The Simplified Chinese Version of the Suitability Assessment of Materials for the Evaluation of Health-Related Information for Adults: Translation and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suitable health education materials can educate people about the potential harms of high-risk factors, leading to expected behavior changes and improved health outcomes. However, most patient education materials were not suitable in terms of content, structure, design, composition, and language, as stated in the literature. There is a pressing need to use well-designed scales to assess the suitability of health education materials. Although such assessment is a common practice in English-speaking communities, few assessment tools are available in mainland China. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to translate the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) for the evaluation of health-related information for adults into a simplified Chinese version (S-C-SAM) and validate its reliability for evaluating the suitability of health education materials written in simplified Chinese in mainland China. METHODS: The SAM was translated into an S-C-SAM in three steps: (1) translating the SAM into an S-C-SAM, (2) translating the S-C-SAM back into an English version, and (3) testing the translation equivalence between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) of the SAM linguistically and culturally. Any differences between these 2 English versions were resolved through a panel discussion. The validity of the S-C-SAM was determined by measuring its content validity index. The final version of the S-C-SAM was used by 3 native Chinese-speaking health educators to assess 15 air pollution-related health education materials. The Cohen κ coefficient and Cronbach α were calculated to determine the interrater agreement and internal consistency of the S-C-SAM. RESULTS: We agreed on the final version of the S-C-SAM after settling the discrepancies between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) and revising 2 items (sentences) rated negatively in content validation. The S-C-SAM was proven valid and reliable: the content validity index was 0.95 both in clarity and in relevance, the Cohen κ coefficient for the interrater agreement was 0.61 (P<.05), and Cronbach α for the internal consistency of the whole scale was .71. CONCLUSIONS: The S-C-SAM is the first simplified Chinese version of the SAM. It has been proven valid and reliable for evaluating the suitability of air pollution-related health education materials written in simplified Chinese in mainland China. It has the potential to be used for assessing the suitability of health education materials specifically selected for other health education purposes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".