Readability of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B Procedural Safeguards: An Update
Saved in:
| Title: | Readability of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B Procedural Safeguards: An Update |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Gray, Sara A., Zraick, Richard I., Atcherson, Samuel R. |
| Source: | Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Jul 2019 50(3):373-384. |
| Availability: | American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2200 Research Blvd #250, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 301-296-5700; Fax: 301-296-8580; e-mail: lshss@asha.org; Web site: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 2019 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Grade 5 Intermediate Grades Middle Schools Grade 6 Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Readability, Educational Legislation, Disabilities, Federal Legislation, Equal Education, Readability Formulas, Grade 5, Grade 6, Guidelines, Computer Software, Graduate Students, Individualized Education Programs, Barriers, Parent Participation, Literacy, Parent Materials, Health |
| Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | Flesch Reading Ease Formula |
| DOI: | 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0057 |
| ISSN: | 0161-1461 |
| Abstract: | Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the readability of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B procedural safeguard documents, as distributed by each of the 50 U.S. states. Results were compared to the 5th- to 6th-grade readability guideline for documents recommended by experts in health literacy and health communication. Method: A commercially available readability software, Readability Studio (Oleander Software, 2009), was used to assess document readability. Text-based files of each IDEA Part B procedural safeguard document were analyzed using four readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid (Flesch, 1965), Gunning fog index (Gunning, 1952), Flesch Reading Ease (Flesch, 1948), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (McLaughlin, 1969). Results: No procedural safeguard document scored below an 11th-grade reading level. Seventy-four percent of these documents were found to be written at a graduate reading level--meaning these documents are written for a reader who is currently enrolled in a master's degree or higher education program. Conclusion: In an effort to decrease barriers to parent participation in the Individualized Education Planning process, those who administer IDEA Part B procedural safeguards should be sensitive to the potential mismatch between the literacy skills of the parent/guardian and the literacy skills needed to comprehend these documents. Developers of IDEA Part B procedural safeguards should account for estimated literacy skills of the general public as ongoing revisions to these safeguards are made. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2019 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1222625 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the readability of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B procedural safeguard documents, as distributed by each of the 50 U.S. states. Results were compared to the 5th- to 6th-grade readability guideline for documents recommended by experts in health literacy and health communication. Method: A commercially available readability software, Readability Studio (Oleander Software, 2009), was used to assess document readability. Text-based files of each IDEA Part B procedural safeguard document were analyzed using four readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid (Flesch, 1965), Gunning fog index (Gunning, 1952), Flesch Reading Ease (Flesch, 1948), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (McLaughlin, 1969). Results: No procedural safeguard document scored below an 11th-grade reading level. Seventy-four percent of these documents were found to be written at a graduate reading level--meaning these documents are written for a reader who is currently enrolled in a master's degree or higher education program. Conclusion: In an effort to decrease barriers to parent participation in the Individualized Education Planning process, those who administer IDEA Part B procedural safeguards should be sensitive to the potential mismatch between the literacy skills of the parent/guardian and the literacy skills needed to comprehend these documents. Developers of IDEA Part B procedural safeguards should account for estimated literacy skills of the general public as ongoing revisions to these safeguards are made. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0161-1461 |
| DOI: | 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0057 |
