Return-Path: <root> Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBts910889 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200108311155.f7VBts910889@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NK1Bf04719 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Dwyoho@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id p.129.1d7c797 (3940) for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:01:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Dwyoho@aol.com Message-ID: <129.1d7c797.288ddc7e@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:01:02 EDT Subject: Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:3211] NALS was wrong To: nifl-health@nifl.gov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_129.1d7c797.288ddc7e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10532 Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:55:54 -0400 Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov Status: O Content-Length: 6953 Lines: 116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just finished reading, carefully, the somewhat lengthy Washington Post article. Thanks, Michelle. In my opinion, no one should do what the reporter did--announce to the world that "NALS was wrong" without first reading every word of this article. Eventually, the reporter gets to the finer points, but the lead paragraphs (typical of news reporting ) are misleading. I must comment that this is a good example of the importance of careful interpretation and reporting of any research, not a forte of journalists. I suspect part of the problem has been the tendency of literacy practitioners to over-sell the "urgency" of the "literacy problem". The fact is, NALS was not designed to determine the percentage of "illiterates" if that term refers to people who absolutely cannot read at all. Responsible literacy practitioners are careful to explain that literacy skills are on a continuum of competency, and that the context of what is being read and why is equally as important as who is doing the reading. Since in my experience the term "illiterate" seems universally intepreted as someone who cannot read at all, I have eliminated the term from my professional vocabulary, unless I am speaking of people who cannot read at all, and then I say "an illiterate--someone who cannot read at all--" and move on. Literacy specialists know full well that only a very small percentage of people--the director of the NALS research says 5%--are fully illiterate. The definition of literacy as defined by Congress includes the phrase "the ability to function", hence the idea of "functional illiteracy", another indefinite term but at least this conveys the idea of a context. What health specialists need to know is that the literacy field is not grounded on the same level of scientific inquiry as the health field--a point I have made in this forum before. Unfortunately, this means a lot of hemming and hawwing in our field about definitions, and much fuzziness from practicitioners, who usually have little or no background in scientific inquiry, and therefore interpret and report research, even research in their own field, quite poorly. In the Washington Post article, Tom Sticht, a literacy expert and RESEARCHER in every scientific sense of the word, is fairly extensively quoted. His perspective as reported in this article should be closely examined. Incidentally, I believe he is also a member of this listserv, or at least has been. The article also quotes Andrew Kolstad, the director of the NALS project, regarding "response probability", and the fact that if this were adjusted in the statistical analysis "only about 9% would fall into the lowest NALS category." Reading between the lines, the problem here is politics, another factor in literacy research--although methinks that bugaboo haunts health studies, too. Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL Health Literacy Discussion Group 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 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:37 EST