The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are charged with safeguarding potential research subjects with limited literacy but may have an inadvertent role in promulgating unreadable consent forms. We hypothesized that text provided by IRBs in informed-consent forms falls short of the IRBs' own readability standards and that readability is influenced by the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight. METHODS: To test these hypotheses, we conducted a cross-sectional study linking data from several public-use sources. A total of 114 Web sites of U.S. medical schools were surveyed for IRB readability standards and informed-consent-form templates. Actual readability was measured with the Flesch-Kincaid scale, which assigns a score on the basis of the minimal grade level required to read and understand English text (range, 0 to 12). Data on the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight were obtained from organizational Web sites. RESULTS: The average readability score for text provided by IRBs was 10.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 10.3 to 10.8) on the Flesch-Kincaid scale. Specific readability standards, found on 61 Web sites (54 percent), ranged from a 5th-grade reading level to a 10th-grade reading level. The mean Flesch-Kincaid scores for the readability of sample text provided by IRBs exceeded the stated standard by 2.8 grade levels (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 3.2; P<0.001). Readability was not associated with either the level of research funding (P=0.89) or local rates of literacy (P=0.92). However, the 52 schools that had been made subject to oversight by the Office for Human Research Protections (46 percent) had lower Flesch-Kincaid scores than the other schools (10.2 vs. 10.9, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: IRBs commonly provide text for informed-consent forms that falls short of their own readability standards. Federal oversight is associated with better readability.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Effect of Bedside Case Presentations on Patients' Perceptions of Their Medical Care
Lehmann, L. S., Brancati, F. L., Chen, M.-C., Roter, D., & Dobs, A. S. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199704173361606 · Cited by 243
Self-citation
Cited by
Fogel, D. B. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 · Cited by 1,035
McCray, A. T. (2004) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1687 · Cited by 371
Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how
Sacristan, J. A., Aguaron, A., Avendaño, C., Garrido, P., Carrion, J., Gutierrez, A., Kroes, R., & Flores, A. (2016) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s104259 · Cited by 363
Lessons learned from the gene therapy trial for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency
Wilson, J. M. (2009) · Molecular Genetics and Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2008.12.016 · Cited by 299
Zaretsky, J., Kim, J. M., Baskharoun, S., Zhao, Y., Austrian, J., Aphinyanaphongs, Y., Gupta, R., Blecker, S. B., & Feldman, J. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0357 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2003-02-20
- Volume
- 348
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 721-726
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2130071626
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa021212
- The paper
- Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa021212
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.