Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide Web

D'Alessandro, Donna M., Kingsley, Peggy, Johnson-West, Jill·2001·Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Literacy is a national and international problem. Studies have shown the readability of adult and pediatric patient education materials to be too high for average adults. Materials should be written at the 8th-grade level or lower. OBJECTIVE: To determine the general readability of pediatric patient education materials designed for adults on the World Wide Web (WWW). MATERIALS AND METHODS: GeneralPediatrics.com (http://www.generalpediatrics.com) is a digital library serving the medical information needs of pediatric health care providers, patients, and families. Documents from 100 different authoritative Web sites designed for laypersons were evaluated using a built-in computer software readability formula (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid reading levels) and hand calculation methods (Fry Formula and SMOG methods). Analysis of variance and paired t tests determined significance. RESULTS: Eighty-nine documents constituted the final sample; they covered a wide spectrum of pediatric topics. The overall Flesch Reading Ease score was 57.0. The overall mean Fry Formula was 12.0 (12th grade, 0 months of schooling) and SMOG was 12.2. The overall Flesch-Kincaid grade level was significantly lower (P<.0001), at a mean of 7.1, when compared with the other 2 methods. All author and institution groups had an average reading level above 10.6 by the Fry Formula and SMOG methods. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patient education materials on the WWW are not written at an appropriate reading level for the average adult. We propose that a practical reading level and how it was determined be included on all patient education materials on the WWW for general guidance in material selection. We discuss suggestions for improved readability of patient education materials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
D'Alessandro, D. M., Kingsley, P., & Johnson-West, J.
Venue
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
155
Issue
7
Pages
807
ISSN
1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169513109
Cited by
287
References
27
FWCI
23.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide Web. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807
The paper
D'Alessandro, D. M., Kingsley, P., & Johnson-West, J. (2001). The Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide Web. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.