研究生: |
張家翎 Chang, Chia-Lin |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
網路營養資訊的使用詞彙與可讀性分析-以初次懷孕婦女為例 The Use of Terminology and Readability of Online Nutrition Information – An Example of The First Pregnancy Women |
指導教授: |
邱銘心
Chiu, Ming-Hsin |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
圖書資訊學研究所 Graduate Institute of Library and Information Studies |
論文出版年: | 2016 |
畢業學年度: | 104 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 158 |
中文關鍵詞: | 營養素養 、可讀性 、資訊需求 、內容分析 、網路營養資訊 、營養察覺 |
英文關鍵詞: | Nutrition Literacy, Information needs, Online Nutrition information, Readability, Content analysis, Nutrition Awareness |
DOI URL: | https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202204826 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:244 下載:40 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
現今的社會中人們可以藉由網際網路為途徑,方便且快速的獲取大量營養與健康資訊但是資訊是否可靠值得重視,可信度較高的網站所提供的文本,通常是由受過專業訓練的人士如醫師、營養師等所寫出,但是專業人士所寫出的文本,難度通常需要高中以上閱讀能力,因此對於一般大眾來說,要閱讀專業人士所寫的文本是有一定的困難的,閱讀理解能力上的落差由此而生。為了降低這個落差並使本研究有最大的效益,本研究以初次懷孕婦女做為研究對象,如果這些懷孕婦女在需求最高的時候沒有辦法得到資訊上的滿足,或是因為獲得的資訊過於艱澀而無法理解,都可能對他未來扮演家中重要食物決策的角色產生負面影響。希望研究成果產出後能夠在各管道產生效應,使得健康資訊的產出能夠簡化,讓這些新手媽媽們受益。
本研究分三階段,第一階段是對網路營養資訊進行內容分析,第二階段是對58位受試者進行營養詞彙測驗,測驗分數代表這些受試者對這104個營養專業詞彙的自我認知與實際認知程度,也同時代表對於詞彙的真實認知。第三階段共計有115位受試者,並有109個有效統計樣本,這群受試者隨機被分配在兩組,基本能力以簡易營養詞彙測驗與簡易健康知能測驗共同代表,兩組的差別在於分配不同設計的閱讀文本,受試者閱讀完畢之後會進行與內容有關的閱讀理解測驗,其分數結果表示文章的可理解性也就是此文本的可讀性分數。
研究結果發現政府建構網站專業詞彙出現比率較高,孕產婦關懷網所使用的專有名詞比例6.8%(379中有26個)相較於媽媽寶寶網站1.4%(763中有11個),在使用的專有名詞以及專有名詞的使用率上的確有明顯的差異,政府建構的網站專有名詞使用率高於消費者健康主題網站。而初次懷孕婦女對營養專業詞彙認知程度接近中間值,受試者的自我認知和概念認知的表現息息相關,但是也有許多受試者錯估自我認知的情況造成自我與概念認知的差異,根據這些差異可以將詞彙分成「被熟悉詞彙」、「艱澀詞彙」、「自我認知高估詞彙」與「低自信詞彙」,根據不同的分類未來專業人士在寫作時應有不同的應對方式。最後,改變使用詞彙與加入註解對初次懷孕婦女探求之營養資訊可讀性沒有顯著的幫助,原因主要是因為題目有些部份設計不良而導致。本研究所設計之研究流程是可以操作的,但是詞彙測驗的設計與閱讀測驗的設計都有很多地方需要更加改進。不應採用單一詞庫進行專業名詞判斷,應該還要在加入更多詞庫或是個人專業判斷確保詞庫的完整,並以功能化、實用化的方向來設計選項。另外雖然改變使用詞彙與加入註解對於受試者的閱讀理解程度整體上並沒有顯著提升,但還是有所幫助,不顯著主要是因為實驗與問卷的設計有所瑕疵。因此有更多資訊提供還是好的,但是敘述的方式與給予幫助的方式未來需要改進。
People easily access nutrition information just by typing the keywords into the search engine. However, past studies have shown that popular health information websites that are addressed to everyday users tend to be easy to use, while the information quality is questionable (Sutherland, 2005). The education materials written by nutrition professionals could be more reliable, but are written at a ninth-grade level or above, while most adults read at an eighth-grade level and 20% read at or below a fifth-grade level (Carbone, 2011). The gap of nutrition literacy between who writes and who uses the information, may lead a situation that is considered at risk for miscommunication and misunderstanding nutrition information provided to them.
To close this gap, researchers attempt to increase the readability of nutrition education materials. This study intends to analyze the nutrition terminology used in two government nutrition and dietary information websites by n-gram cutter and nutrition dictionary. The results of the generated nutrition terminology list will be presented to the women of first pregnancy, who has the highest demand of nutrition information (Szwajcer, et al., 2005). Then an experiment will be conducted to investigate the nutrition literacy of these women, as well as the relationship between the terminology used and readability of the nutrition education materials.
Results shown that government built websites are using more terms than dietary information websites. Terms found in Government built website form a 6.8% of its articles, while only a 1.4% were found in dietary information websites, and the terms they use were different from each other. The outcome of the cognitive process of women during their first pregnancy shown that self-cognition was highly related to real-cognition, but there are still some exceptions. According to the relations between self-cognition and real-cognition, terms can be categorized as “familiarized words," "incomprehensible words," "overrated vocabulary" and "low confidence word”. In the future professionals should use these terms accordingly based on the different category.The result of the experiment was insignificant: changing the terms used cannot inprove the readability of nutrition education materials, but this was caused by the poor test design. Changing terms into familiarized words and adding notes still gave people more clues to help them understand professional information.
This study hopes to construct a method of analyzing readability and to identify a list of nutrition terminologies that is accurate and appropriate, which can be applied to communicating nutrition and dietary information to the future mothers and general publics.
中文部分
Timdream (2011)。使用 Open Web 技術實作 HTML5 中文文字雲。檢自:http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/foss-forum/8339--open-web-html5-
Weng,Ling-Chih(2007)。中文文章適讀性線上分析系統。檢自:http://140.127.45.25/Readability/Analyze/About.aspx
牛津字典(2015)。term。檢自:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/term
王雲東(2007)社會研究方法。 新北市:威仕曼文化
市售包裝食品營養標示規範 (民96)
民國101年「台灣無線網路使用調查」報告。 檢自:http://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/200307index.shtml
宋佩貞。 (2009)。 台灣審定版國小英語教科書適讀性公式建置與評估。 臺東大學教育學系教學科技碩士班學位論文, 1-147。
宋曜廷, 陳茹玲, 李宜憲, 查日龢, 曾厚強, 林維駿, 張道行 & 張國恩。 (2013)。 中文文本可讀性探討: 指標選取, 模型建立與效度驗證。 中華心理學刊, 55(1), 75-106。
李秀珍。 (2010)。 醫師對網路健康資訊之可信度判斷研究。 臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所學位論文, 1-160。
林純旭,李亭亭。 (2010)。 提升護理競爭力-淺談數位落差。 護理雜誌, 57(1), 95-99。
林純雯。 (2010)。 Newest Vital Sign 健康素養量表中文版之信效度檢驗與應用-以幼兒職前教師爲例。 健康促進與衛生教育學報, (34), 1-31。
林清山。 (1992)。 心理與教育統計學。 臺北: 東華書局。
林靜雯, 吳育倫, & 林燕青。 (2011)。 動態表徵融入二階層試題對診斷學生簡單及串聯電路概念之答題影響。 Research and Development, (61), 25-50。
邱琬淳,謝明哲,楊素卿,簡怡雯,陳俊榮,葉松鈴,劉珍芳。(2002)營養學字辭精要。台北市:匯華
邱魏頌正、陳嘉俊(2004)。數位落差現象再探討—多國比較分析。傳播管理與研究,3(2),1-29。
食品藥物管理署(2011)食品藥物消費者知識服務網公告
徐式寬,關秉寅。(2011)。 國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調查。 Chinese Journal of Science Education,19(4), 335-357。
荊溪昱, 趙世範, 翁凌志。 (2007)。 中文文章適讀性線上分析系統之發展研究。 科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集, (2006), 47-57。
張美娟。 (2009)。 健康素養與健康照護。 志為護理-慈濟護理雜誌, 8(3), 65-69。
許婉甄, 陳素鳳與何青蓉。 (2011)。 大學生網路健康資訊使用經驗之初探-健康素養的觀點。 健康促進與衛生教育學報, (35), 1-22。
陳世敏。 (1971)。 中文可讀性公式試擬。 新聞學研究, (8), 181-225。
陳光華, 莊雅蓁。 (2001)。 資訊檢索之中文詞彙擴展。 Journal of Information, Communication and Library Science, 8(1)。
智慧型知識擷取技術與應用研究 (II)─ 子計畫一: 語料庫之設計與製作 (II)。 1998。
曾旭民, 廖淑芬。 (2012)。 糖尿病人健康識能與血糖照護結果之相關探討。 中華民國糖尿病衛教學會會訊, 8(3), p1-7。
游美惠。 (2000)。 內容分析, 文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。 調查研究-方法與應用, (8), 5-42。
湯澡薰, 韓柏檉, 張文英等。 (2007)。 臺灣地區國民健康知能之調查研究。台北醫學大學 [通識教育中心] 計畫報告
楊孝濚。 (1971)。 中文可讀性公式。 新聞學研究, (8), 77-101。
楊意菁。 (2013)。 台灣健康資訊網站之內容訊息與公眾溝通分析。 資訊社會研究, (25), 23-46。
萬美麗(2010)。初產婦採行陪產員陪產的生命經驗。(未出版之碩士論文)
葉曉文(2001)。初次懷孕婦女孕期健康需求之探討-以孕婦需求面論。(未出版之碩士論文)
董氏基金會。 市售食品營養標示民眾理解程度現況調查(2010)
圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典(2014)。檢自:資訊素養:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679154/
臺北市重要統計指標名詞定義(2014)。檢自:http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/NEWS_WEEKLY/Dic_LISTN.asp
趙強(2014)。營養師,請問這個網路上的某某說法正確嗎?。檢自:http://www.commonhealth.com.tw/blog/blogTopic.action?nid=583
劉惠敏(2014)。營養聖戰40年。台北市:遠見天下
蔡孟修(2014)。這款泡麵成分70種 大學生嘛看攏嘸,蘋果日報電子版。檢自:http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20141215/524113/
蔡慈儀, 李守義, 蔡憶文, 郭耿南。 (2010)。 中文健康識能評估表的發展與測試。 醫學教育, 14(2), 122-136。
蔡靜芳, 金惠民, 洪信嘉,蔡碧仁,李蕙蓉,陳瑩霖,江宏哲,黃孟娟 。 (2007)。 台灣地區營養師使用網路資訊之調查。 臺灣營養學會雜誌, 32(1), 9-19。
衛生福利部(民100)。健康促進瞭望專欄-健康體重管理。檢自:http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Bhpnet/Web/Column/ColumnContent.aspx?id=201107080001
衛生福利部(民102)健康促進瞭望專欄 - 衛生福利部國民健康署http://www.hpa.gov.tw/BHPNet/Web/Column/ColumnContent.aspx?id=201308190001
黎玟mesure(2010)。離群值OUTLIER 跑法 檢自: http://blog.xuite.net/mesureli/twblog/123420124-%E9%9B%A2%E7%BE%A4%E5%80%BCOUTLIER+%E8%B7%91%E6%B3%95 去除Outlier,
學校衛生法。(民104年12月30日)
蕭榮賢(2005)。基於詞彙分析之資訊搜尋系統的設計與實作。(未出版之碩士論文)
蘇哲能, 張淑鳳, 陳榮基, 潘豐泉, 陳清軒, 劉偉文。 (2008)。 台灣健康知能量表之初探性研究。 臺灣醫學, 12(5), 525-536。
西文部分
Anliker, J. A., Laus, M. J., Samonds, K. W., & Beal, V. A. (1990). Parental messages and the nutrition awareness of preschool children. Journal of Nutrition Education, 22(1), 24-29.
Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguisticassumptions underlying readability formula: A critique.Language & Communication, 21, 285-301.Bruce, B. C., Rubin, A. D., & Starr, K. S. (1981). Why readability formulas fail (Reading Educational ReportNo. 28). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., Parker, R. M., Gazmararian, J. A., & Nurss, J. (1999). Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient education and counseling, 38(1), 33-42.
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-2621.
Bruce, B. C., Rubin, A. D., & Starr, K. S. (1981). Why readability formulas fail (Reading Educational Report No. 28). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Buis, L. R. & Carpenter, S. (2009). Health and medical blog content and its relationships with blogger credentials and blog host. Health Communication, 24 (8), 703-710.
C. H. Chi、C. Ding and Andrew Lim, “Word segmentation and recognition for web document framework”, ACM CIKM’99,November 1999 Page(s):458-465.
Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Do students know what they know and what they don’t know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students’ alternative conceptions. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 313-337.
Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961.
Carbone, E. T., & Zoellner, J. M. (2012). Nutrition and health literacy: a systematic review to inform nutrition research and practice. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(2), 254-265.
Chen, J. L., Cha, J. H., Chang, T. H., Sung, Y. T., & Hsieh, K. S. (2012, Nov). CRIE: A tool for analyzing Chinese text characteristics. Paper presented at 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology (SCiP 2012). Minnesota, USA.
Chou, C., Chan, P.S. and Wu, H.C. (2007). Using a two-tier test to assess students’ understanding andalternative conceptions of cyber copyright laws. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1072-84.
Cline, R. J., & Haynes, K. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health education research, 16(6), 671-692.
Croft, W. B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2010). Search engines: Information retrieval in practice (p. 35-42). Reading: Addison-Wesley.a
Croft, W. B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2010). Search engines: Information retrieval in practice (p. 75-80). Reading: Addison-Wesley.b
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predictingreadability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37-54.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1949). The concept of readability.Elementary English, 26, 19-26.
Diamond, J. J. (2007). Development of a reliable and construct valid measure of nutritional literacy in adults. Nutr J, 6(5), 1475-2891.
Dollahite, J., Thompson, C., & McNew, R. (1996). Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Education and Counseling, 27(2), 123-134.
Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior, 33(3), 352-373.
Frost, J., & Smith, B. K. (2003, June). Visualizing health: imagery in diabetes education. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1-14). ACM.
Gibbs, H., & Chapman-Novakofski, K. (2012). A review of health literacy and its relationship to nutrition education. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 27(4), 325-333.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M.,& Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202.
Green, T. R. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. People and computers V, 443-460.
http://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/journal/06/1.htm
Kastsinas, S. G., & Moeck, P. (2002). The digital divide and rural community colleges: Problems and prospects. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(3),207-224.
Kicklighter JR, Stein MA. Factors influencing diabetic clients’ ability to read and comprehend printed diabetic diet material. Diabetes Educ. 1993;19(1):40-46.
Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson, R.Barr., M. I. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (pp. 681-744). New York: Longman.
Klare, G. R. (2000). The measurement of Readability:Useful information for communicators. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 107-121.
Lively, B. A., & Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method formeasuring the “vocabulary burden” of textbooks.Educational Administration and Supervision, 9, 389-398.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading -- A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 22, 639-646.
Merritt SL, Gates MA, Skiba K. Readability levels of selected hypercholesterolemia patient education literature. Heart Lung. 1993;22(5):415-420.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health promotion international, 15(3), 259-267.
NUTRITION LITERACY.in diet.com.Retrieved Jen 03,2015 from http://www.diet.com/g/nutrition-literacy
O'Kane, S. M., Pourshahidi, L. K., Farren, K. M., Mulhern, M. S., Strain, J. J., & Yeates, A. J. (2015). Knowledge and awareness of iodine nutrition among women of childbearing age. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(OCE4), E260.
Ratzan, S. C. (2001). Health literacy: communication for the public good. Health promotion international, 16(2), 207-214.
Rothman, R. L., Housam, R., Weiss, H., Davis, D., Gregory, R., Gebretsadik, T.,Shintani,A., & Elasy, T. A. (2006). Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. American journal of preventive medicine, 31(5), 391-398.
Si, L., & Callan, J. (2001, October). A statistical model for scientific readability. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 574-576). ACM.
Silk, K. J., Sherry, J., Winn, B., Keesecker, N., Horodynski, M. A., & Sayir, A. (2008). Increasing nutrition literacy: Testing the effectiveness of print, web site, and game modalities. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 40(1), 3-10.
Skupin, A., Biberstine, J. R., & Börner, K. (2013). Visualizing the topical structure of the medical sciences: a self-organizing map approach. PloS one, 8(3), e58779.
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC public health, 12(1), 80.
Sung, Y. T., Chen, J. L., Cha, J. H., Tseng, H. C., Chang, T. H., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Constructing and validating readability models: the method of integrating multilevel linguistic features with machine learning. Behavior Research Methods, in press. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0459-x
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, T.H., Chen, J.-L., Cha, J.-H., Huang, C.-H., Hu, M.-K., & Hsu, F.-Y. (2011, July). The construction of Chinese Readability Index Explorer and the analysis of text readability. Paper presented at 21th Annual Meeting of Society for Text and Discourse Process, Poitiers, France.
Sutherland, L. A., Wildemuth, B., Campbell, M. K., & Haines, P. S. (2005). Unraveling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 37(6), 300-305.
Swanson, C. E., & Fox, H. G. (1953). Validity of readabilityformulas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 114-118.
Szwajcer, E. M., Hiddink, G. J., Koelen, M. A., & van Woerkum, C. M. (2007). Nutrition awareness and pregnancy: Implications for the life course perspective. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 135(1), 58-64.
Szwajcer, E. M., Hiddink, G. J., Koelen, M. A., & Van Woerkum, C. M. J. (2005). Nutrition-related information-seeking behaviours before and throughout the course of pregnancy: consequences for nutrition communication. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, S57-S65.
Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The teacher’s word book. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.),Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Van Dillen, S. M., Hiddink, G. J., Koelen, M. A., de Graaf, C., & van Woerkum, C. M. (2003). Understanding nutrition communication between health professionals and consumers: development of a model for nutrition awareness based on qualitative consumer research. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 77(4), 1065S-1072S.
Velardo, S. (2015). The Nuances of Health Literacy, Nutrition Literacy, and Food Literacy. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.
Vidgen, H. A., & Gallegos, D. (2014). Defining food literacy and its components.Appetite, 76, 50-59.
"Weiss, B. D., Mays, M. Z., Martz, W., Castro, K. M., DeWalt, D. A., Pignone, M. P.,
Mockbee.J & Hale, F. A. (2005). Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. The Annals of Family Medicine, 3(6), 514-522."
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4). Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz.
Yang, S.-J. (1970). A readability formula for Chineselanguage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Zoellner, J., Connell, C., Bounds, W., Crook, L., & Yadrick, K. (2009). Peer reviewed: nutrition literacy status and preferred nutrition communication channels among adults in the lower Mississippi Delta. Preventing chronic disease, 6(4).