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 g3DF7lu02070; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:07:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:07:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <c9.208e8c48.29e9a329@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: Lendoak@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3670] Re: SAM X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 259 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c9.208e8c48.29e9a329_boundary" Status: O Content-Length: 6098 Lines: 112 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Karen and net, Thank you for your interest in Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). No web site describes SAM, so a brief description here may be helpful. A full description is given in Chapter 4 of our book.* Purpose: Over the years, we had assessed sutiability of over 2,000 health education materials in print, audio, and video formats. We developed SAM to provide a practical and quantitative way to assess materials that use any of these formats, but primarily for text and visuals in print materials. A secondary purpose of SAM is to identify potential problem areas (quickly and objectively) so these might be revised. Assessment factors: A large number of factors contribute to suitability. To keep the SAM to practical size, we limited the number of factors to 22 we considered most important. These are segmented under six headings: - Content (4) - Literacy demand (5) - Graphics (5) - Layout and typography (3) - Learning stimulation and motivation (3) - Cultural appropriateness (2) For each of the 22 factors, there are one or more assessment criteria. Most of these are measurable , for example: Readability level, typography characteristics (print size, line lengths,etc.), the amount of included interaction with the reader/viewer, etc. Assessment scoring: Scoring criteria are given for each of the 22 factors. The material is assigned a 2 (meets all or nearly all assessment items), a 1 (meets some items), 0 (meets few of none). A sum of the scores for the 22 factors is made iand converted to terms of 0 to 100 percent. The scores fall in one of three brackets: 70-100% =suitable, 40-69% adequate, 0-39% not suitable. Validation: Most of the individual 22 factors are based on well established health education or adult education research and practice. A few factors, notably the two in Cultural Appropriateness are less easy to quantify because there are so many different cultures. For these two factors, the criteria are matching the logic, language, and experience of the material with the culture for whom the material is prepared. An evaluation of SAM was done by asking a number (120)of health educators and other health practitioners to assess a health material with text and visuals. All were able to so this in about 45 minutes, including time to read it through. There was consistency in their evaluation results: About 75% rated it adequate (may need suplemental instruction with the material), 10% unsuitable, 15% suitable. Karen, we hope this is helpful to you. Please contact us at lendoak@aol.com if you'd like more info. best wishes, Ceci and Len Doak Patient Learning Assoc. inc. *Doak, Doak, Root. Teaching aptients with low literacy skills, 2nd Ed.), Lippincott, 1996.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:31 EST