GET-IT Glossary
Your FREE glossary of research terms.
The GET-IT Glossary contains lay-friendly definitions of research jargon, drafted by a collaboration between the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and James Lind Initiative in the UK.
GET-IT provides a simple, clear browsing interface so you can see everything it contains. It also features a predictive search function for easy searching.
Definitions are clear and concise, with more detailed explanations if needed. Cross-links to other terms in the glossary allow users to explore easily.
The Challenge
The content was drafted offline through a series of iterations, resulting in a database of 221 terms.
But jargon changes over time, audiences can have different requirements, and improvements are always needed.
So we needed:
- a simple content management system to allow editors control of terms
- simple version control so that editors can track changes through the system, and revert to previous versions
- distributed authorship, allowing a team of editors to look after specific terms, and
- a way of getting feedback from users on how well each definition works for them
- to make GET-IT embeddable in third party websites.
The Solution
We worked with end-users and the IHC design team to create a simple but authoritative information structure and front-end design.
The search results give users the basic definition, with a link to the full text. The full texts of definitions are link-rich, allowing users to swim through the glossary. We also provide synonyms, a full explanation and related terms.
As well as the open-access website version, organisations can embed the glossary in their own website, as with the Catalogue of Bias, and even customise it for their own audience.
You can read how the glossary content was created in the methods paper: Moberg, J., Austvoll-Dahlgren, A. et al. (2018) ‘The plain language Glossary of Evaluation Terms for Informed Treatment choices (GET-IT) at www.getitglossary.org’. Research for All, 2 (1): 106–121. DOI 10.18546/RFA.02.1.10.
So what can GET-IT tell us?
Since its launch in 2018, GET-IT definitions have been viewed 1.8 million times via the website front-end. The most obvious question is: What concepts do people need help with?
Here are our “top ten” jargon terms, the ones people look up most often:
| Terms | Count |
|---|---|
| cut-off value | 68299 |
| summary of findings | 64693 |
| index test | 43145 |
| eligibility criteria | 34913 |
| performance bias | 22571 |
| length-time bias | 22363 |
| randomized study | 22233 |
| baseline characteristics | 22125 |
| reference standard test | 21042 |
It’s interesting to see relatively general terms such as “summary of findings” so prominent.
GET-IT introduces the I Don’t Get It (IDGI) score for terms in the glossary.
Every time a person views a definition they can tell us “I Don’t Get It” using a user-friendly feedback mechanism.
Now that we have a dataset of millions of views, this allows us to see how well each definition performs.
Problematic terms (IDGI 3% or over) are:
- “cut-off value” (8.4%)
- “critical assessment” (5.2%)
- “length-time bias” (5.0%)
- “indeterminate diagnostic test result” (4.6%)
- “summary of findings” (3.8%)
- “planned analysis” (3.8%)
- “relative effect” (3.5%)
- “double dummy” (3.4%)
- “index test” (3.0%)
- “baseline characteristics” (3.0%)
Some potentially useful insights there for educators in the field of critical thinking. Also for writers of glossary definitions!
It’s not always the terms you think people will struggle with. If you involve users, and listen to them, they will tell you where jargon lurks, and can help to craft definitions to tackle it.
