Aphasia websites: An examination of their quality and communicative accessibility

Abstract

Background: Studies have examined Internet use as a source of information by various populations, however no study has examined the quality and accessibility of websites for people with aphasia, or their use of such sites. Aims: This study aimed to describe the quality, communicative accessibility, and readability of a sample of aphasia websites and to determine whether sites preferred by people with aphasia were those rated highly on measures of accessibility and quality. The perceptions of people with aphasia regarding the accessibility of the sites were compared with those of speech pathologists. The relationship between the quality and communicative accessibility of websites was analysed. Factors that may influence use of the Internet by people with aphasia and speech pathologists were explored. Methods & Procedures: Tools for measuring quality and communicative accessibility were developed and a sample of five websites was selected. Two participant groups (18 speech pathologists and 6 people with aphasia) assessed aphasia websites in terms of communicative accessibility. Speech pathologists also rated website quality. Spearman's rho was used to determine levels of agreement between variables. Outcomes & Results: People with aphasia and speech pathologists showed minimal agreement on their perceptions of communicative accessibility. However, when the preferences of people with aphasia and overall ratings were considered, both groups agreed that two specific websites (Aphasia Help and Speakability) were of a very high standard. There was a weak relationship between quality and communicative accessibility, however it was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Accessible websites are not necessarily of high quality, and quality websites are not guaranteed to be easily accessible. People with aphasia did not agree with speech pathologists as to what makes a good aphasia website. Therefore, people with aphasia should be involved in the design of aphasia websites since they are often the intended users. If Internet use by people with aphasia increases in line with other health populations, speech pathologists need to have the skills and confidence to recommend appropriate sites to their clients.

Characteristics and Quality of Autism Websites

“…More than one of five websites (21%) offered a product or service for purchase and 17% of the websites promoted a treatment that is not evidence-based. The overall reading level of the websites, as measured by the Flesch-Kincaid grade equivalence, was high (mean = 13, median = 12.8), suggesting 50% of the websites were written at a collegiate, which is higher than the average reading level of parents in the United States (i.e., 7th-8th grade; Davis et al 1994), of other healthrelated websites (e.g., Ghidella et al 2005), and pediatric patient education materials (Davis et al 1994). While this advanced reading level might be due to the technical nature of information presented on the websites, it might preclude some consumer's full comprehension of the information.…”

Aphasia rehabilitation and the role of computer technology: Can we keep up with modern times?

“…Due to the communication disorder, people with aphasia themselves have limited access to the internet. Ghidella, Murrays, Smart, McKenna, and Worrall (2005) investigated the quality and communicative accessibility of a number of websites. They conclude that high quality websites did not always have a high accessibility, and vice versa.…”

An assessment of the quality of information on stroke and speech and language difficulty web sites

“…The low correlation of the readability scores had with other scores raises important issues regarding information quality and accessibility [5], in that sites with high quality information may not necessarily be accessible to people of all reading levels, and similarly, information that is highly readable may not be of high quality. For example, Revolution Health (site 35) ranked highly against quality and content criteria (ranking 1, 1, 8), yet much lower for readability (ranking 25 and 20).…”

“…In 2011, there were an estimated 175 million active web sites on the Internet [4], and digital content is reported to have exceeded 800 billion gigabytes. Healthcare information is part of this and is referred to increasingly, not only by health professionals, but by patients, their families and members of the public [5]. 42% of the UK population are reported to use the Internet to seek healthrelated information [6].…”