Skip to main content

Table 1 Measures used in study and scoring process

From: Disorders of sex development (DSD) web-based information: quality survey of DSD team websites

Tool

Validated

A measure of

Coding plan

Scoring

Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)

Yes

Reading level (grade) of written material

All DSD Team Pages reviewed as one document, resulting in a single score

DSD Team Links and Other Webpages scored individually

Count multisyllabic words across 30 sentences; sentences taken from beginning, middle and end of document

Total sum converted into grade level

Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

Yes

Understandibility and actionability of information

All webpages (DSD Team Pages, DSD Team Links and Other Pages) scored individually

Each webpage received both understandability and actionability score

2 scales: “understandability” (17 items), “actionability” (7 items)

Rating: 0 (Disagree) or 1 (Agree) that information presented on a page met item criteria

70% items meeting criteria considered to be acceptable for each scale

DISCERN

Yes

Quality of online health information regarding specific treatment choices

Any webpages with information related to hormone replacement or surgery scored individually

Each treatment received own DISCERN score

15 specific items + 1 “global” item

Rating: 1 (criterion not met at all) to 5 (criterion completely met)

Score (sum of 15 items)a

• < 38 = Poor

• 39–50 = Fair

• 51–62 = Good

• 63–75 = Excellent

Completeness Rating

No

Overall completeness of information provided across a range of DSD topics

All DSD Team Pages and DSD Team Links reviewed individually

Overall completeness score for site generated across webpages

25 items

Rating: 0 (information not provided about item) or 1 (information provided about item)

“Percentage complete” score for each site

  1. aBased on Rao et al., 2012
  2. Note: Prior to coding, coders reviewed each measure’s administration manual and/or scoring criteria. Coders practiced coding on DSD Team Pages of institutions that were not part of the DSD-TRN (found through a Google search), with discrepancies in coding resolved through review of manual and discussion under the supervision of the first two authors