Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3ABsTu00799; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000801c1e086$fe703310$6501a8c0@bleh> 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: "Linda McIntosh" <lmcintosh@attbi.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3658] Re: Readability vs. Understandability X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1041 Lines: 21 I am following this strand with a lot of interest. I am creating a policy for my organization (Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge MA) regarding reading level of health education materials submitted for translation. With the support of the organization's leadership, we are proposing to require a documented reading level of 6th grade or lower for anything to be translated for patients. I've chosen that rather than a more meaningful reading level plus "easy-to-read" criteria because RL is measureable. We treat many people who speak other languages better than English. Many of them have very limited reading skills. While print isn't the only way we present take-home information, it is the major one. We decided to focus on materials to be translated as there seems no way to ensure that we would ever see ALL materials used with patients and we don't want a policy that we can't comply with. Has anyone done this? What was the impact? Linda McIntosh, RN CS Coordinator of Patient Education Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge MA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:31 EST