Aziz KARA, Hatice BEYAZAL POLAT

Assessment of the readability of online texts related to specific learning disorder

The aim of this study was to investigate the readability and content of texts on specific learning disorder published on Turkish websites. In the study, the first three hundred websites which were accessed by writing three main word groups (dyslexia, learning disability, specific learning disorder) to the search engine in July 2019 were eval-uated. Of these, chat and forum sites, commercial sales sites, the sites that contained advertising, video and pictures only and less than 10 sentences of information, and news sites that do not contain information about the disorder were excluded. One hundred and two websites remained after the exclusion criteria were applied. Websites are classified according to their makers. The readability values of the texts were calculated using the Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas. The contents of the text were compared according to the subject headings. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of readability values. The readability values of the groups were found to be at the level of undergraduate education. As a result, in our study, it was observed that the readability of websites prepared for specific learning disorder was low. It was thought that this result may adversely affect the awareness about the disorder and may reduce the possibility of early diagnosis and treatment in children.

PDF

___

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th edition. American Psychiatric Pub, 2013.

2. Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Weaver AL, et al. The forgotten learning disability: epidemiology of written-language disorder in a population-based birth cohort (1976-1982), Rochester, Minnesota. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1306-13.

3. Altarac M, Saroha E. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among US children. Pediatrics. 2007;119:77-83.

4. Norton ES, Beach SD, Gabrieli JD. Neurobiology of dyslexia. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015;30:73-8.

5. Trzesniewski KH, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, et al. Revisiting the association between reading achievement and antisocial behavior: new evidence of an environmental explanation from a twin study. Child Dev. 2006;77:72-88.

6. Margari L, Buttiglione M, Craig F, et al. Neuropsychopathological comorbidities in learning disorders. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:198.

7. Turkish Statistical Institute. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=27819 access date 22.07.2019.

8. Turkish Statistical Institute. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18660 access date 22.07.2019.

9. Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. Readability of patient education texts presented on the internet in the field of anesthesiology. Turkiye Klinikleri J Anest Reanim. 2017;15:63-70

10. Boztaş N, Özbilgin Ş, Öçmen E, et al. Evaluating the readibility of informed consent forms available before anaesthesia: a comparative study. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2014;42:140-4.

11. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language J. 1997;58:171-4.

12. Bezirci B, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12:49-62.

13. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-33.

14. Dogan O, Ersan EE, Dogan S. The probable learning disorders in primary school students: A preliminary study. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2009;10:62.

15. Bingol A. Rate of developmental dyslexia in second and fourth graders in Ankara. Ankara Universitesi Tip Fakultesi Mecmuasi. 2003;56:67-82.

16. Kollia B, Basch CH, Kamowski-Shakibai MT, et al. Testing the readability of online content on autism spectrum disorders. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2019;3:85-90.

17. DuBay WH. The Principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information; 2004:71.

18. Bağcı Z, Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. Readability of patient education texts presented on the internet related to vaccines. J Pediatr Infect Dis 2019;14:180-5.

19. Sabo RM. Autism consumer health websites: are readability levels too high? Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 2008;12:337-48.

20. Yildiz M, Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. Assessment of readability level of informed consent forms used in intensive care units. Med-Science. 2019;8:277-81.

21. Barro RLJ. Educational attainment dataset 2011. http://www.barrolee.com/ access date 22.07.2019.

22. Pastor PN, Reuben CA. Diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability: United States, 2004-2006. Vital Health Stat 10. 2008:1-14.

23. Mugnaini D, Lassi S, La Malfa G, et al. Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World J Pediatr. 2009;5:255-64.

24. Nelson JM, Harwood H. Learning disabilities and anxiety: a meta-analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2011;44:3-17.

25. Cortiella C, Horowitz SH. The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National center for learning disabilities. 2014;25.

26. Tanrıöver MD, Yıldırım HH, Ready ND, et al. Türkiye sağlık okuryazarlığı araştırması. Birinci Baskı. Sağlık-Sen Yayınları; Ankara, 2014.