Dataset Information

Spelling Errors and Shouting Capitalization Lead to Additive Penalties to Trustworthiness of Online Health Information: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The written format and literacy competence of screen-based texts can interfere with the perceived trustworthiness of health information in online forums, independent of the semantic content. Unlike in professional content, the format in unmoderated forums can regularly hint at incivility, perceived as deliberate rudeness or casual disregard toward the reader, for example, through spelling errors and unnecessary emphatic capitalization of whole words (online shouting).

Objective

This study aimed to quantify the comparative effects of spelling errors and inappropriate capitalization on ratings of trustworthiness independently of lay insight and to determine whether these changes act synergistically or additively on the ratings.

Methods

In web-based experiments, 301 UK-recruited participants rated 36 randomized short stimulus excerpts (in the format of information from an unmoderated health forum about multiple sclerosis) for trustworthiness using a semantic differential slider. A total of 9 control excerpts were compared with matching error-containing excerpts. Each matching error-containing excerpt included 5 instances of misspelling, or 5 instances of inappropriate capitalization (shouting), or a combination of 5 misspelling plus 5 inappropriate capitalization errors. Data were analyzed in a linear mixed effects model.

Results

The mean trustworthiness ratings of the control excerpts ranged from 32.59 to 62.31 (rating scale 0-100). Compared with the control excerpts, excerpts containing only misspellings were rated as being 8.86 points less trustworthy, those containing inappropriate capitalization were rated as 6.41 points less trustworthy, and those containing the combination of misspelling and capitalization were rated as 14.33 points less trustworthy (P<.001 for all). Misspelling and inappropriate capitalization show an additive effect.

Conclusions

Distinct indicators of incivility independently and additively penalize the perceived trustworthiness of online text independently of lay insight, eliciting a medium effect size.

SUBMITTER: Witchel HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7315370 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSpelling difficulty is a common symptom of aphasia and can entail editing difficulties. Previous research has shown that extensive editing is related to a lower production rate in text writing for persons with aphasia, yet editing difficulty is not commonly examined. It is not known if editing difficulty is related to reading and writing skills or to aspects of the word.AimsTo analyse spelling and editing processes as well as errors in a dictation task performed by Swedish-speaking adults with post-stroke aphasia. Furthermore, the study aimed to identify any relationships between spelling and editing difficulties and characteristics of individual words. Finally, relationships between successful edits and reading and phonological ability were investigated and specific editing strategies or behaviours identified. Correlation analyses were performed between measures of spelling and editing and word frequency and length as well as participants' scores on tests of reading, phonological spelling and phonological decoding.Methods & proceduresA total of 16 Swedish speaking participants with post-stroke aphasia wrote a word-dictation task in a keystroke logging program and were tested for phonological spelling, phonological decoding and reading ability. Spelling errors were categorized and analysed.Outcomes & resultsThe most common error type was omission of letter(s) and there was evidence of aphasia-specific writing errors. Both spelling and editing difficulty were related to word frequency and word length. Successful editing was related to participants' scores on the phonological spelling task, but not to phonological decoding or reading ability. Specific editing strategies could be identified, and some strategies were individual, while others were more commonly used.Conclusions & implicationsWord length and word frequency should be taken into consideration in spelling tests for persons with aphasia, and the presence of editing difficulty should be taken into account when assessing spelling difficulties. Treatment for writing difficulties in aphasia should include training in successful editing strategies and individual fitting of digital writing aids. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Post-stroke aphasia often causes writing and spelling difficulties. Spelling difficulties may entail editing difficulties, in turn causing extensive and/or unsuccessful editing. Extensive editing is known to impede productivity in text writing. Still, editing behaviour, abilities relating to editing or what features of a word that causes editing difficulty has not been investigated for persons with aphasia. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study adds an in-depth analysis of spelling ability, spelling errors and editing behaviour for persons with aphasia, using keystroke logging and a single-word dictation task. Results showed that both features of the target word (frequency and word length) and the individual abilities of the person with aphasia (score on a phonological spelling task) related to spelling and editing difficulty, editing behaviour and successful editing. Specific editing strategies were analysed and described. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Word length and word frequency should be taken into consideration when testing single-word spelling for persons with aphasia. When assessing spelling difficulties, both correctness of spelling as well as the presence and nature of any editing difficulties should be taken into account and treatment for writing difficulties in should include training in successful editing strategies. The fitting of digital writing aids for persons with aphasia should be individual, since many of the editing strategies used were individual.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Online health forums are widely used, but the quality of advice differs as much as the knowledge backgrounds of the audience members who receive the advice. It is important to understand how people judge the information given online. In line with the communication accommodation theory (CAT), online forums represent specific social contexts of communication which can present either accommodative or nonaccommodative language to an audience. Accordingly, use of accommodative or nonaccommodative language might affect people's perceived trust in the communicator. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to investigate how experts who use accommodative (vs nonaccommodative) language are evaluated by passive users of an online forum. METHODS:Participants (n=98) took part in an online experiment and read experts' posts about 10 nutrition myths. Following a 2 x 2 mixed design, experts' posts were written using either low or high amounts of medical technical jargon (MTJ) (within factor) and were directed at different audiences (mainly other medical experts [in a professional forum] vs a user group mainly comprising laypersons [in an advisory forum]) (between factor). Accommodation occurred where experts used high amounts of MTJ to address other medical experts in the professional forum; it also occurred when experts used low amounts of MTJ to address laypersons in the advisory forum. Conversely, nonaccommodation occurred when experts used high amounts of MTJ in the advisory forum and low amounts of MTJ in the professional forum. In each condition, participants evaluated the credibility of the information, the trustworthiness of the experts, and the accommodation by the experts. RESULTS:Overall, participants judged the credibility of information to be higher when experts used MTJ that was accommodative to the designated audience, F1,95=3.10, P=.04, ?p2=.031. In addition, participants judged the experts in professional forums to be more trustworthy than experts in advisory forums (all F1,96?3.54, P ?.03, ?p2?.036). Moreover, participants rated experts who used high amounts of MTJ to have higher competence (F1,96=37.54, P<.001, ?p2=.28], lower integrity (F1,96=10.77, P=.001, ?p2=.101), and lower benevolence (F1,96=9.75, P=.002, ?p2=.092), as well as to have lower perceived accommodation to the audience (all F1,96?72.17, P<.001, ?p2?.43) compared with experts who used low MTJ. CONCLUSIONS:To provide health information online that is perceived as credible, experts should consider using similar language as the language used by the addressed audience. As it is often impossible to determine the exact makeup of an online audience, further research might investigate whether having experts explicitly declare which audience they intend to address can help people to more reliably assess an expert's trustworthiness. Furthermore, as people assess information differently depending on the context of online communication, it would be valuable for research to consider other aspects of the context beyond those of the audience.