2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing
  4. Volume 47, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 47, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

A large hospital decided to improve the usability of its patient information leaflets. Using 16 pairs of original and revised leaflets, this study (the first of its kind) shows how the revisions affected various aspects of usability. The texts are evaluated via a text quality checklist containing 49 criteria concerning text content, structure, wording, visual appearance of the text, and use of images. Half of the criteria had been used by the revising text professionals; other items were added by the researchers to better cover the text quality construct. In the checklist analysis process we noticed many text problems were initially observed by only one of the two assessors, and were agreed upon in subsequent discussion.

Overall, the texts showed improvement, but criteria differed vastly in progress rate. Some criteria were never problematic, neither in the original nor in the revised texts. Others clearly showed improvements. And some criteria remained problematic, especially ones regarding text content and text structure. No difference was found between the criteria already used by the revisors and those added by the researchers. For text content, structure and wording criteria, we found that relatively lower starting levels go hand in hand with lower end levels, suggesting low revisability. This pattern was not observed for visual appearance criteria, which showed almost perfect end levels.

We offer two explanations for why revising is sometimes hard. First, comprehension problems tend to be forgotten by readers once they are solved. Second, some text quality criteria require highly subtle, context-dependent assessments. These factors complicate both the work of revisors and that of revision researchers. Nevertheless, our checklist can be useful for practitioners, when used to conduct text quality discussions among colleagues.

© Henk Pander Maat & Nikki Geuzendam
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND
2025-12-01
2026-01-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/47/3/TVT2025.03.002.PAND.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adams, A. M., Simmons, F., Willis, C., & Pawling, R. (2010). Undergraduate students’ ability to revise text effectively: relationships with topic knowledge and working memory. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 54-76. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01432.x
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, M. M., Luttikhuis, T., Putrik, P., Jansen, I., Rademakers, J., de Wit, M., & Boonen, A. (2022). Consideration of health literacy in patient information: a mixed-methods study of COVID-19 crisis communication in Dutch rheumatology. BMC Rheumatology, 6(1), 52. Doi: 10.1186/s41927-022-00283-x
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bommel, H. van & Leeuwen, M. van (2018). Voorlichtingsmateriaal Beoordelings-Instrument (VBI). Utrecht: Pharos; 2018. https://www.pharos.nl/kennisbank/voorlichtingsmateriaal-beoordelingsinstrument-vbi/
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bovair, S., & Kieras, D.E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In Understanding expository text, edited by B.K.Britton and J.B.Black. Routledge, pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BureauTaal z.j. Eenvoudig Nederlands. https://www.bureautaal.nl/eenvoudig-nederlands-26, geraadpleegd 25-3-2024.
  6. Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70-96. Doi: 10.1177/0741088310387891
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chatrangsan, M., & Petrie, H. (2019, May). The effect of typeface and font size on reading text on a tablet computer for older and younger people. In Proceedings of the 16th International Web for All Conference (pp. 1-10). Doi: 10.1145/3315002.3317568
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Corsius, M., Lange, V., Linders, Y., Pander Maat, H., Pool, E. van der, Sangers, N.Sliedrecht, K., Sluis-Tiescheffer, W. & Swart, C. (2023a). Monitor Begrijpelijkheid overheidsteksten. Eindrapportage. HAN University of Applied Sciences & Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Geuzendam, N. (2023). Begrijpelijke patiëntenfolders: hoe dragen tekstbeleid en tekstuele aanpassingen hieraan bij? Eindwerkstuk Master Communicatie en Organisatie, Universiteit Utrecht.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gwet, K. (2002). Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Statistical methods for inter-rater reliability assessment1(6), 1–6. https://www.agreestat.com/papers/kappa_statistic_is_not_satisfactory.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (61), 29–48. Doi: 10.1348/000711006X126600
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hou, G., Anicetus, U., & He, J. (2022). How to design font size for older adults: A systematic literature review with a mobile device. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 931646. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931646
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ISO 24495-1 (2023). Plain language Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/78907.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jong, M. de & Schellens, P.J. (1993). Met het oog op de lezer. Pretestmethoden voor schriftelijk voorlichtingsmateriaal. Thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Pander Maat, H., & van der Geest, T. (2021). Monitor begrijpelijke overheidsteksten. HAN University of Applied Sciences Academie IT en Mediadesign Centrum IT + Media in opdracht van ministerie van BZK en de Taalunie. https://taalunie.org/publicaties/203/monitor-begrijpelijke-overheidsteksten
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Pander Maat, H. & Geuzendam, N. (2025) Checklist Tekstkwaliteit. https://www.communicatierijk.nl/documenten/2025/06/03/checklist-voor-tekstkwaliteit
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Pharos (z.j.). Online Checklist Toegankelijke Informatie. https://www.pharos.nl/kennisbank/checklist-toegankelijke-informatie/
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Rello, L., Pielot, M., & Marcos, M. C. (2016, May). Make it big! The effect of font size and line spacing on online readability. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3637-3648). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858204
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Richardson, J. T. (2022). The legibility of serif and sans serif typefaces: Reading from paper and reading from screens. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90984-0
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Roussey, J. Y., & Piolat, A. (2008). Critical reading effort during text revision. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 765-792. Doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.114
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Scaltritti, M., Miniukovich, A., Venuti, P., Job, R., De Angeli, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2019). Investigating effects of typographic variables on webpage reading through eye movements. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49051-x
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Shoemaker, S. J., Wolf, M. S., & Brach, C. (2014). Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Education and Counseling, 96(3), 395-403. Doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Stichting Lezen en Schrijven. Eenvoudige taal. https://www.lezenenschrijven.nl/wat-doen-wij/oplossing-voor-je-vraagstuk/eenvoudige-taal, geraadpleegd 25-3-2024.
  25. Taal voor allemaal. (2021). Schrijven in Taal voor allemaal+. Geraadpleegd 15-9-2022 op www.taalvoorallemaal.com/IManager/Download/1071/115371/31457/2189157/NL/31457_2189157_70i2_210903_Schrijven_in_Taal_voor_allemaal_2021_PDF_.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Tan, W. S., Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009). Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(4), 621-627. Doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012
     [Google Scholar]
  27. TeamTaaladvies Vlaamse Overheid (z.j.). Heldere en doeltreffende standaardbrieven en -mails. Checklist en voorbeelden. Vlaamse Overheid. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/47119
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J. R., Hatch, J. A., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. M. (1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 682688. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.682
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Welle Donker-Kuijer, M.C.J., De Jong, M.D.T., & Lentz, L.R. (2008). Heuristic web site evaluation: Exploring the effects of guidelines on experts’ detection of usability problems. Technical Communication, 55(4), 392–404.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Xu, S., & Lorber, M. F. (2014). Interrater agreement statistics with skewed data: Evaluation of alternatives to Cohen’s kappa. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 82(6), 1219-1227. Doi: 10.1037/a0037489
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND
Loading
Reviseren en reviseerbaarheid
TvT 47, 204 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2025.03.002.PAND
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): checklists; health communication; heuristics; patient information leaflets; text accessibility; text revision; Text usability

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error