Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 21;5(4):e25. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.6440

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of the Suitability Assessment of Materials items.

SAMa factor Nb (%)
0c 1c 2c Missing
Content

1a) Purpose is evident 3 (3) 62 (73) 20 (24)

1b) Content about behaviors 65 (77) 20 (23)


1c) Scope is limited 20 (24) 29 (34) 36 (42)

1d) Summary or review included 78 (92) 1 (1) 6 (7)
Literacy demand

2a) Reading grade level 85 (100)



2b) Writing style 44 (52) 33 (39) 8 (9)

2c) Common vocabulary 43 (51) 33 (39) 9 (10)

2d) Context given first 4 (5) 22 (26) 59 (69)

2e) Use of “road signs” 5 (6) 10 (12) 70 (82)
Graphics

3a) Cover graphic shows purpose 10 (12) 30 (35) 8 (9) 37 (44)

3b) Type of graphics 14 (16) 16 (19) 4 (5) 51 (60)

3c) Relevance of illustrations 72 (85) 11 (13) 2 (2)

3d) Lists, tables, etc explained 4 (5) 6 (7) 3 (3) 72 (85)

3e) Captions used for graphics 11 (13) 8 (9) 5 (6) 61 (72)
Layout and typography

4a) Layout factors 22 (26) 50 (59) 13 (15)

4b) Typography 1 (1) 8 (9) 76 (90)

4c) Subheadings used 32 (38) 24 (28) 29 (34)
Learning stimulation, motivation

5a) Interaction used 42 (49) 43 (51)


5b) Behaviors modeled/specific 43 (51) 30 (35) 12 (14)

5c) Motivation and self-efficacy 7 (8) 15 (18) 63 (74)
Cultural appropriateness

6a) Match in logic, language, experience 16 (19) 44 (52) 25 (29)

6b) Cultural images and examples 65 (76) 20 (24)

aSAM: Suitability Assessment of Materials.

bN: sample size

cScoring: 0= not suitable, 1=adequate, 2=superior.