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 g8RJeTX27832; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <003201c2665d$70a023d0$c2570a23@D8LYBN11> 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: "Jeff Grabill" <grabill@msu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3782] RE: Assessing how well people follow written instructions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2357 Lines: 59 Jay ... You may want to examine technical communication and the ways in which folks in that field sometimes conduct usability tests. Technical writers produce much of the documentation we use and the field has lots of ways to handle the situation you describe. In fact, as one who teaches technical writing, I am struck by the similarities between technical and health communication ... and struck as well by how little the two fields know about each other. So hopefully the seach terms above will help. If you would like to discuss this further in terms of help hunting resources that are more focused for your needs, plese let me know offlist. jeff ____________ Jeff Grabill Associate Professor Department of American Thought and Language Michigan State University (v) 517.432.4031 (f) 517.353.5250 http://www.msu.edu/~grabill -----Original Message----- From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Jay Gribble Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:23 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3781] Assessing how well people follow written instructions We have recently finished designing a package insert for a new family planning product called CycleBeads. We have fieldtested specific parts of the insert, asking OB/Gyn clinic patients how they would explain certain paragraphs to another person, and have modified several sections based on their responses, We think that the research improved readability and comprehension of the insert. Now we want to test the insert to find out if the instructions are clear enough for potential users to use them on their own to (1) screen themselves to determine if it is an appropriate method for them, (2) determine when to start using the method, and (3) how to use the beads to track their menstrual cycles. The method is very easy to use after counseling, but we want to evaluate how well people can read and apply the directions that come in the package with the CycleBeads, without any counseling. Is anyone familiar with any similar research-or appropriate search terms in the literature to provide some theoretical basis? What about fields other than health-such as buying a product and having to follow directions to assemble it. Marketing? Cognitive behavior? Thanks. Jay Gribble Institute for Reproductive Health Georgetown University www.irh.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:35 EST