Trial reportScandinavian journal of psychology2025
Improved readability in written neurodevelopmental reports by five writing rules.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of a neuropsychological assessment is to describe a child's difficulties and strengths to enable treatments and contextual adjustments. Typically, the assessment is summarized in the form of a written clinical report. However, such texts have been criticized for being too difficult for parents and teachers to read and comprehend. The purpose of this pre-registered and randomized controlled study was to evaluate five writing rules to improve readability and accessibility in clinical reports: to structure the text with functional domains, exemplify cognitive tasks with examples from daily life, use examples from the daily life of the child, avoid jargon, and to write shorter sentences. We created two separate reports based on the same assessment information of a hypothetical child: one "standard" report, and one where the five writing rules were applied. One hundred teacher students at a teacher education program were randomized to read one of the reports, and then rated readability and answered a comprehension quiz. Results showed that the five writing rules led to improved ratings of readability, and helped readers recall more information immediately afterward. Effects were medium to large. Future studies need to investigate whether the findings generalize to parents and other potential readers. Additionally, future work should address how psychologists can be taught to improve their writing through writing guidelines. Clinical trial registration: https://aspredicted.org/ac96p.pdf.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.