Are Physical Activity Resources Understandable as Disseminated? A Meta-Analysis of Readability Studies
- 16 May 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Quest
- Vol. 70 (4) , 492-518
Abstract
Readability studies routinely report that resources with physical activity-related content exceed the eighth-grade reading level (RL), the maximum recommended for health education resources. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to determine the extent that findings in the literature represented true differences and whether production sources differed in their average RL. Fourteen studies met the study inclusion criteria. The main analysis involved 819 print and web article resources produced by government and nongovernment sources. The average RL was greater than eighth-grade (M = 10.25, 95% CI = [9.62, 10.91], p < .001), a nearly substantial magnitude of difference (g = .75), with a substantial percentage of the observed effects representing true differences (I2 = 79.79%). No differences were observed between productions sources, Q(5) = 2.56, p = .767. Publication bias and publication date did not meaningfully affect the main findings, nor did variations in study methodology or quality. The implications of these results for kinesiology are discussed and recommendations for future research are presented.Keywords
This publication has 118 references indexed in Scilit:
- An investigation of the theoretical content of physical activity brochuresPsychology of Sport and Exercise, 2011
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Literacy-Sensitive Self-Management Intervention for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease PatientsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2011
- Effect of Problem-Solving-Based Diabetes Self-Management Training on Diabetes Control in a Low Income Patient SampleJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2011
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials From the AAOS Web SiteClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2008
- Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patientsBMJ, 2007
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLOS Medicine, 2005
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-AnalysisJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2000
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 1979