Dataset Information

Language of written medical educational materials for non-English speaking populations: an evaluation of a simplified bi-lingual approach.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Debates have arisen in various non-English speaking countries over the chosen language of instruction in medical education, whether it has to be the English language or the mother tongue. English-based education supporters argue that English is the leading international language of medicine and research, and a crucial tool for Continuing Medical Education (CME), as well as for students who seek practice abroad. On the other hand, mother-tongue-based medical education supporters present it as a way to endorse communication and comprehension between medical practitioners and health care system users, to bridge the gap between practitioners and the paramedical staff, and to overcome linguistic dualism and the language thinking disparity while studying in another. This study aimed to evaluate one of the simplified bi-lingual approaches in terms of medical-educational-written texts for a non-English speaking population: Arabic speaking medical students in specific. METHODS:1546 Arabic-speaking-medical students from different countries participated in a one-step-interactive-experimental-online test. The test assessed participants' scientific comprehension of three distinct written paragraphs: The first paragraph used conventional mother tongue (Arabic), the second combined English terminology and simplified mother tongue (hybrid), and the third used an English excerpt (English). Two multiple-choice questions (First question in Arabic, second in English) followed each paragraph. Response time was communicated for each paragraph. Participants were asked to select their favorable method. Repeated Measures ANOVA models and Paired Samples t-Test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS:Participants scored a mean of [0.10] for the Arabic paragraph, [0.72] for the hybrid paragraph, and [0.24] for the English paragraph (P?

SUBMITTER: Alsuliman T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6849289 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Language of written medical educational materials for non-English speaking populations: an evaluation of a simplified bi-lingual approach.

Alsuliman Tamim T Alasadi Lugien L Mouki Angie A Alsaid Bayan B

BMC medical education 20191111 1

<h4>Background</h4>Debates have arisen in various non-English speaking countries over the chosen language of instruction in medical education, whether it has to be the English language or the mother tongue. English-based education supporters argue that English is the leading international language of medicine and research, and a crucial tool for Continuing Medical Education (CME), as well as for students who seek practice abroad. On the other hand, mother-tongue-based medical education supporter ...[more]

PMID: 31711476

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of traditional measures of phonological ability developed for monolingual English-speaking children with their bilingual peers in both English and Spanish. We predicted that a composite measure, derived from a combination of English and Spanish phonological measures, would result in higher diagnostic accuracy than examining the individual phonological measures of bilingual children separately by language. Method Sixty-six children, ages 3;3-6;3 (years;months), participated in this study: 29 typically developing bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children (x = 5;3), five bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children with speech sound disorders (x = 4;6), 26 typically developing monolingual English-speaking children (x = 4;8), and six monolingual English-speaking children with speech sound disorders (x = 4;9). Children were recorded producing single words using the Assessments of English and Spanish Phonology, and productions were phonetically transcribed and analyzed using the Logical International Phonetics Program. Overall consonants correct-revised; accuracy of early-, middle-, and late-developing sounds; and percent occurrence of phonological error patterns in both English and Spanish were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves and support vector machine models were applied to observe diagnostic accuracy, separately and combined, for each speaker group and each language. Results Findings indicated the combination of measures improved diagnostic accuracy within both the English and Spanish of bilingual children and significantly increased accuracy when measures from both languages of bilingual children were combined. Combining measures for the productions of monolingual English-speaking children did not increase diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion To prevent misdiagnosis of speech sound disorders in bilingual preschoolers, the composite phonological abilities of bilingual children need to be assessed across both gross and discrete measures of phonological ability. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16632604.

Project description:BackgroundLimited health literacy (HL) contributes to poor health outcomes and disparities, and direct measurement is often time-intensive. Self-reported HL questions have not been validated among Spanish-speaking and diverse English-speaking populations.ObjectiveTo evaluate three self-reported questions: 1 "How confident are you filling out medical forms?"; 2 "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?"; and 3 "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" Answers were based on a 5-point Likert scale.DesignThis was a validation study nested within a trial of diabetes self-management support in the San Francisco Department of Public Health.ParticipantsEnglish and Spanish-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes receiving primary care.MethodsUsing the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA) in English and Spanish as the reference, we classified HL as inadequate, marginal, or adequate. We calculated the C-index and test characteristics of the three questions and summative scale compared to the s-TOFHLA and assessed variations in performance by language, race/ethnicity, age, and education.Key resultsOf 296 participants, 48% were Spanish-speaking; 9% were White, non-Hispanic; 47% had inadequate HL and 12% had marginal HL. Overall, 57% reported being confident with forms "somewhat" or less. The "confident with forms" question performed best for detecting inadequate (C-index = 0.82, (0.77-0.87)) and inadequate plus marginal HL (C index = 0.81, (0.76-0.86); p<0.01 for differences from other questions), and performed comparably to the summative scale. The "confident with forms" question and scale also performed best across language, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and age.ConclusionsA single self-reported HL question about confidence with forms and a summative scale of three questions discriminated between Spanish and English speakers with adequate HL and those with inadequate and/or inadequate plus marginal HL. The "confident with forms" question or the summative scale may be useful for estimating HL in clinical research involving Spanish-speaking and English-speaking, chronically-ill, diverse populations.

Project description:Purpose:We compared teacher ratings as measured by the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL; Dickinson, McCabe, & Sprague, 2001, 2003) and Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2; Bishop, 2006) to 2 established screeners, the Part II of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-ST-II; Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2003) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Next (DIBELS; Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2009), and then examined whether teacher ratings alone or when combined with the DELV-ST-II or DIBELS accurately classify nonmainstream English-speaking kindergartners by their clinical status. Method:Data came from 98 children who lived in the rural South; 47 spoke African American English, and 51 spoke Southern White English. Using the syntax subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Norm Referenced (Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2005) as the reference standard, 43 were language impaired and 55 were typically developing. Analyses included analysis of variance, correlations, and discriminant function with sensitivity and specificity indices. Results:The TROLL, CCC-2, DELV-ST-II, and DIBELS showed clinical status but not dialect effects, and they correlated with each other, the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Norm Referenced, and other language measures. Classification accuracies of all 4 tools were too low for screening purposes; however, empirically derived cut scores improved the results, and a discriminant function selected the TROLL and DELV-ST-II as optimal for determining who should be referred for an evaluation, with the TROLL yielding the highest level of sensitivity (77%). Conclusion:Findings support teacher ratings as measured by the TROLL when screening nonmainstream English-speaking kindergartners for language impairment in the rural South, while also calling for additional development and study of teacher rating tools and other screening instruments. Supplemental Material:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6007712.

Dataset Information

Language of written medical educational materials for non-English speaking populations: an evaluation of a simplified bi-lingual approach.

Publications

Language of written medical educational materials for non-English speaking populations: an evaluation of a simplified bi-lingual approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets