Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) Journal Article


Authors: Vishnevetsky, J.; Walters, C. B.; Tan, K. S.
Article Title: Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)
Abstract: Objective: To assess the interrater reliability (IRR) and usability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and the relationship between PEMAT scores and readability levels. Methods: One hundred ten materials (80 print, 30 audiovisual) were evaluated, each by two raters, using the PEMAT. IRR was calculated using Gwet's AC1 and summarized across items in each PEMAT domain (understandability and actionability) and by material type. A survey was conducted to solicit raters’ experience using the PEMAT. Readability of each material was assessed using the SMOG Index. Results: The median IRR was 0.92 for understandability and 0.93 for actionability across all relevant items, indicating good IRR. Eight PEMAT items had Gwet's AC1 values less than 0.81. PEMAT and SMOG Index scores were inversely correlated, with a Spearman's rho of −0.20 (p = 0.081) for understandability and −0.15 (p = 0.194) for actionability. While 92% of raters agreed the PEMAT was easy to use, survey results suggested specific items for clarification. Conclusion: While the PEMAT demonstrates moderate to excellent IRR overall, amendments to items with lower IRR may increase the usefulness of the tool. Practice implications: The PEMAT is a useful supplement to reading level alone in the assessment of educational materials. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: patient education; evaluation; readability; actionability; patient education material assessment tool; pemat; understandability
Journal Title: Patient Education and Counseling
Volume: 101
Issue: 3
ISSN: 0738-3991
Publisher: Elsevier Ireland Ltd.  
Date Published: 2018-03-01
Start Page: 490
End Page: 496
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.003
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC5839932
PUBMED: 28899713
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 2 April 2018 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Chasity Burrows Walters
    48 Walters
  2. Kay See   Tan
    241 Tan