Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 10;19(4):1969. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19041969

Table 3.

Descriptive statistical evaluation of the UPIM-Checks.

Correctness & Validity of Content - Does the Content Seem to Be Correct? Does the Information Appear to Be Valid?
Q1 Q1.1 Q1.2 Q1.3 Q1.4 Q1.5 Q1.6 Q1.7 Q1.8 Q1.9
Very Good 44.4% 60.0% 50.0% 80.0% 30.0% 70.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 10.0%
Sufficient 24.4% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Unsatisfactory 17.8% 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0% 30.0%
NI 13.3% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Readability of Content - Is the Content Easy to Read?
Q2 Q2.1 Q2.2 Q2.3 Q2.4 Q2.5 Q2.6 Q2.7 Q2.8
Very Good 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 60.0% 30.0% 60.0% 50.0% 20.0%
Sufficient 25.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 50.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Unsatisfactory 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0%
NI 15.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 50.0%
Structural Readability - Is the Structure of the Information Appropriate for the Target Group?
Q3 Q3.1 Q3.2 Q3.3 Q3.4
Very Good 70.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 40.0%
Sufficient 17.5% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 40.0%
Unsatisfactory 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
NI 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Graphical Readability - Is the Layout Addressing the Needs of the Target Group?
Q4 Q4.1 Q4.2 Q4.3 Q4.4 Q4.5 Q4.6 Q4.7 Q4.8 Q4.9 Q4.10
Very Good 70.0% 50.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 70.0%
Sufficient 12.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 20.0%
Unsatisfactory 7.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
NI 11.0% 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%