Table 1.

Examples of experts’ feedback from different sections of the content validation form, and decisions made by authors.

Section	Experts’ Feedback	Authors’ Decision	Authors’ Motivations
Transparency	“[…] Accessibility is a very broad term that includes many aspects. Contemplating it as an item within the ‘Transparency’ section is perhaps reductive. Here it is meant as ease of access in the sense of availability […] ‘Accessibility’ refers to the possibility of accessing a text or information even by those who use assistive technologies, or particular devices, and it is a requirement that is not easy to test and verify.”	Accepted	The item is intended to evaluate whether the resource is free and freely accessible without technological constraints. We will replace the item “Accessibility of the document” with “Availability of the document”
Language	“[...] Within individual categories, several parameters are sometimes listed, and the evaluation is based on the number of parameters met. However, the parameters listed do not all have the same rank. For example, parameter 4 (prevalence of sentences with only one main piece of information) is much more significant than parameter 1 (subject explained in each sentence) or 5 (absence of sentences including lists)” [...]	Rejected	This is an acceptable compromise between the depth of the evaluations and the sustainability of the evaluation process itself, which should be carried out by librarians and health information professionals and not by linguists or technicians. Some of the parameters examined may not have the same rank from a strictly linguistic point of view, but could have the same impact on the potential reader thinking from the perspective of health literacy principles and practices
Graphical Features	“The evaluation of the tables possibly present in the document appears a bit difficult and hardly applicable in practice”	Rejected	The evaluation of the tables can be difficult to perform. This aspect will be assessed in the next phase of the validation process (reliability).
Use of Numbers	“I suggest inserting the item ‘Quantification of risk with absolute rather than relative numbers’”	Accepted	This item takes into consideration a relevant aspect that is not currently covered by the tool.
Additional comments	“It is not clear to me if ETHIC also applies to web/web-only tools.” “I wonder if the inclusion of videos (linked from the written text, obviously in the case of Internet resources) is possibly pertinent to this manual…”	Rejected	The comments received were very valuable, because they allowed us to understand that this specification is not sufficiently evident either on the cover or in the text of the manual. Therefore, we will make the intended use of ETHIC more explicit, which in this version subject to validation is confirmed to be reserved only for printed texts (booklets, brochures, and the like) and their electronic versions