Towards Equitable Communication of Kinesiology: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis of Readability Research

ABSTRACT

Thirty-nine years ago, Bain and Poindexter (1981) implored higher educators of kinesiology to develop curricula that prepare students to use what they learn in practical ways. Lay resource material, however, often fails to meet metrics for adequate-to-optimal readability, regardless of who produces them. Research suggests that many people trained in kinesiology are not trained to communicate its content to lay adult audiences. Thus, the purpose of this study was to advance knowledge about this academic-practice-divide in kinesiology concerning plain language communication. Methodology for a critical interpretive synthesis was used to qualitatively synthesize readability research in kinesiology. Twenty-four peer-reviewed research articles met the study inclusion criteria, all published between 1992 and 2020 (M = 2010.1, SD = 8.8). There were 1550 materials studied across the articles. It was typical for these materials to run counter to plain language guidelines (i.e., low readability in one-or-more critical areas). Most materials were unsuitable for adults with basic health literacy or less – about half of the U.S. adult population. Following their presentation of results, the article authors often suggested one of six ways for improving lay material readability. Two major themes emerged from the qualitative synthesis of the articles: (a) how article authors discussed readability issues and what they proposed to be done to fix them, and (b) critiques of the research articles included in this study. The findings of this literature review shine light on the need to use readability research in kinesiology in programs that train people in an area of the discipline.

KEYWORDS:

• Curriculum
• health communication
• health equity
• praxis
• universal precaution

Acknowledgments

We thank Cal Poly’s BEACoN Network for helping to support the lead author’s mentorship of undergraduate students helping with the project. We thank Mikaela Minoggi, BEACoN Research Mentee for the 2020 Winter Quarter, for her help in developing and piloting our methods to locate potential articles to include in this literature review. For their encouragement, guidance, and feedback on an earlier iteration of this paper, we thank Bradley J. Cardinal, Ph.D., FNAKHE (Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA) and Camille O’Bryant, Ph.D., FNAKHE (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA). We thank Bethany Hersman, Ph.D., FNAKHE (Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA) for encouraging the lead author (JDT) to apply for NAKHE’s Hally Beth Poindexter Young Scholar Award, and we extend our sincerest gratitude to the reviewers for the Young Scholar Award for considering our work.

Notes

1. Manual verification of any web/electronic tool should always be performed with each new sample (e.g., because algorithms can change). For attempts to meet optimal readability, the reader should be aware the Fry method is recommended for confirming if material have met the reading grade level criterion for optimal readability (i.e., at/below the fifth grade). Preliminary evidence suggests that the Fry method is better at discriminating between reading difficulty level at lower grades (i.e., sixth and lower; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012, pp. 20–21).

Additional information

Funding

During the 2019–2020 academic year, the project that led to this paper received funding support from the BEACoN Research Program (Believe, Educate & Empower, Advocate, Collaborate, Nurture Network, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA).