Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 27.
Published in final edited form as: Nephrol Nurs J. 2014 Jul-Aug;41(4):355–364.

Table 3.

Websites’ Content Quality and Readability Scores (N = 40)

Assessment M (SD)
DISCERN Item content
1. Aims are clear. 3.2 (1.4)
2. It achieves the aimsa. 4.2 (0.7)
3. Contents are relevant. 3.8 (1.0)
4. Source of information is clear (e.g., research evidence or expert opinion). 2.5 (1.5)
5. Dates of the source of information are clear. 3.1 (1.5)
6. Information is balanced in terms of a range of information sources and evidence of an external review. 2.2 (1.1)
7. Details of additional sources for information are provided. 3.1 (1.8)
8. Areas of uncertainty are discussed (e.g., gaps in knowledge). 1.7 (0.9)
Overall Quality Rating 2.9 (1.0)
Readability level by Flesch Reading Ease scores
100 to 91 = Very Easy 0
90 to 81 = Easy 0
80 to 71 = Fairly Easy 3 (7.5%)
70 to 61 = Standard 11 (27.5%)
60 to 51 = Fairly Difficult 7 (17.5%)
50 to 31 = Difficult 15 (37.5%)
0 to 30 = Very Difficult 4 (10.0%)
a

n = 30, excluding 10 websites with unclear aims.