Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id PAA28891; Tue, 23 May 2000 15:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <b2.58d11ce.265c349c@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Dwyoho@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2399] Re: Researcher Shows Web Medical Information Difficult To ... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: OR I'd like to comment on the interpretation of the term "grade level", as a former high school principal and instructor. 1. When a child scores "6.2" on a standardized test, this means s/he scored as well as the mean score of other children enrolled in school in the second month of the 6th grade WHO ALSO TOOK THAT TEST when the norms were derived. Obviously, the "skill" or "reading ability" of judged to be at 6.2 will actually depend on whatever the skill level is of the preponderance of test-takers at the time the normed groups were tested. The test developers regularly "re-norm" their tests by administering these achievement tests to a new "norm" group, usually about every 10 years. Therefore, a score on someone's record of 6.2 on a test taken in 1970 may not reflect the same skill level of a 6.2 score on a test taken in 1990. It depends on the skill level of the children in the norm group. 2. Notice the designation of the decimal as a "month" in school, not a tenth of a grade. 3. Don't lose sight of the fact that these norms are derived from CHILDREN, not adults, although of course, tests such as the TABE, which is designed for adults, are normed with adult test takers. 4. The entire concept of grade level is in reference to childhood schooling, and is in many ways meaningless as a DIAGNOSTIC measure of an adult's reading skill. Grade level scores are expressed this way to measure the ACHIEVEMENT of one person in comparision to other people, not as a measure of skill mastery. Grade level scores are relative, not definitive. 5. In general practice, if we decide that a given reading passage is written at a certain grade level, say 6.0, we are saying the "average" sixth grade CHILD would be able to read that passage. However, in my experience as a literacy professional, I generally treat grade levels assigned to instructional materials as somewhat inflated. The 6.0 level in my example is an instructional level (meaning the passage or materials are appropriate for use in the instruction of 6th graders at the begining of the sixth grade.) Instructional level is not the same as the independent reading level, i.e. the level when the reader can manage without an instructor involved. Actually, in the case of health information, we need to strive not for the independent level but the recreational level, the level where the reader can read with fluency and the most understanding. 6. Never forget that the average grade level (loosely expressed as skill level) of high school graduates in this country is about 8.0. Therefore, something judged written at 10.2 really requires a skill level beyond high school, not a "tenth grade reading ability". By the same token, a person who scores 6.0 can usually read everyday writing as well as most high school students, although there is likely to be a difference in vocabulary skill. 7. Scores below 5.0 are notoriously inexact as a guide. In practice, I mentally think of 4.0-5.0 as about the same. 2.0--3.0 is definitely much lower. I also believe, by experience, that there is a bigger knowledge gap between 2.0-3.0 than between 4.0-5.0 Some on this list may want to flesh out these generalized remarks--I am not a testing expert and am commenting as a practitioner, not a statistician. But after 20 years, I find these general rules of thumb useful. In short, moving health information from 10.2 to as low as 8.0 might help communicate with high school graduates, but we are still a long way from reaching low literacy populations. Personally, I feel 5.0 should be our goal for plain language, keeping in mind all the contingencies I have expressed. Deborah W. Yoho Chief Executive Officer Greater Columbia Literacy Council 921 Woodrow Street Columbia, SC 29205 803/765-2555 dwyoho@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:43:01 EST