College - Author 1

College of Science and Mathematics

Department - Author 1

Kinesiology and Public Health Department

Degree Name - Author 1

BS in Public Health

College - Author 3

College of Science and Mathematics

Department - Author 3

Kinesiology and Public Health Department

Degree - Author 3

BS in Kinesiology

College - Author 4

College of Science and Mathematics

Department - Author 4

Kinesiology and Public Health Department

Degree - Author 4

BS in Kinesiology

Date

10-2022

Primary Advisor

Jafra D. Thomas, College of Science and Mathematics, Kinesiology and Public Health Department

Additional Advisors

Samantha M. Ross, West Virginia University, College of Applied Human Sciences

Abstract/Summary

Background. This file provides a coding form developed to judge how accessible websites and other online platforms are to users. Accessibility may be defined as the ease to which a person can perceive content and navigate material (Ross & Ross, 2021). Users are encouraged to adapt this form for their use.

Purpose. The rating form can be used to judge the pages of online media, using 14 criteria under two areas: Accessible Media and Accessible Design. One of three grades could be assigned to each criterion: Not Accessible (0 point), Somewhat Accessible (1 point), Accessible (2 points), adapted from published research by Wallace et al. (2010). Initially, this form was developed to rate the website created using the Learning Management System platform, Canvas (Instructure, n.d.), which was adapted as a research survey website.

Form validity and reliability. This form was based on guidelines for accessible websites, provided from the World Wide Web Consortium (Zahra, 2019). This form was found to have excellent rater agreement within a preliminary study, which was presented at the 2022 Southwest Chapter Conference Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine (October 28-29, Costa Mesa, California). The intraclass coefficient statistic was used (four raters, M = .91, LL = .82, UL = .94; Landers, 2015). Results were interpreted using Cicchetti’s (1994) interpretive cut-points. Further detail is reported in the published abstract to the study’s presentation (Wu et al., 2022).

Share

COinS