• Health Improvement Institute has established the following standards to assess Internet health information site awards and ratings.  Awards/ratings meeting all applicable HIIQA standards are winners of the HIIQA
• To learn how the Institute uses standards to assess awards/ratings
• To comment on standards or to volunteer for the assessment panel

1.0 Ratings organization

1.1 Name of organization

1.1.1 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site states the name of the organization that gives an award to or rates Internet health information sites.

1.1.2 Guideline: Rating organization's WWW site states the organization's mailing address and telephone number.

1.2 Form of organization

1.2 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site states the form of organization, for example, for-profit corporation, educational foundation, etc.

1.3 Purpose of organization

1.3 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site states the organization's purpose.

1.4 Primary contact at organization for rating systems

1.4 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site provides a way to contact the person responsible for administering the ratings organization's award/rating program.

1.5 Funding for organization

1.5 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site states the principal sources of funding for the organization that gives the awards/ratings.

1.6 Funding/support for WWW site ratings/awards

1.6 Standard: Rating organization's WWW site states the sources of funds and other support used to give awards/ratings.

2.0 Content and display of award/rating on the ratings organization's site

2.1 Type of award/rating

2.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site provides information to determine if the award/rating is an award for which one must apply, an unsolicited award, a rating, an accreditation program, or a ranking.

2.2 Dates, time periods, frequency of awards

2.2.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site displays at least one of the following, for the current or previous calendar year, as appropriate:

á Year that the award was given

á Date of the ratings

á Date that accreditation/accreditation was given and the date that it expires

á Date that the list was complied

Rationale: If the ratings WWW site displays award-winning and rated-sites, consumers can verify that an Internet health information site that displays the ratings organization's award/rating has, in fact, received the award or has been rated.

Note: Standard 2.6 addresses the display of the Internet address of and links to award-winning and top-rated sites.

2.2.2 Standard: Ratings WWW site states one of the following:

á frequency and timing of awards/rating, accreditation, or listing, and the frequency it reviews/revises them (for example, annually, in October each year)

á the award/rating, accreditation, or ranking was a one-time activity and when it was determined.

2.2.3 Guideline: Periodical (re) ratings, (re) accreditation, or (re) ranking is preferable to one-time ratings, accreditation, and rankings.

Note: See also standard 4.7.

2.3 Purpose of award/rating

2.3 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes award's, rating's (rating system's), accreditation's or ranking's purpose.

2.4 Intended users (audience) of award/rating

2.4 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes the intended users (audience) of the award, ratings, accreditation, or ranking, and, if appropriate, the specific uses intended for each audience.

2.5 Disclosures and disclaimers

2.5.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site displays disclosures and disclaimers that explain how consumers should and should not use its award/ratings.

2.5.2 Standard: Ratings WWW site displays the date that disclosures and disclaimers were last updated.

2.6 Links to other sites

2.6.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site provides easy-to-use links to, or, at least, the Internet address of, award-winning, top-rated (and/or worst-rated), accredited, or listed sites, or an explanation that the awarded/rated site does not permit any such link.

2.6.2 Guideline: Ratings WWW site provides a link to the hii.org WWW site or, if they exist, to other Internet sites that offer credible information on how to interpret awards and ratings.

2.6.3 Standard: Ratings WWW site discloses the basis of any links offered to consumers, and states whether or not the ratings organization receives money or other consideration from the linked-to site for the link.

Note: If the site has no links in connection with the award/rating (other than those permitted by Standard 2.6.1), the award/rating meets this standard.

2.7 Intuitive appeal, user-friendliness of presentation

2.7.1 Standard: Awards, ratings, accreditation's, and rankings are intuitive, that is, easy-to-comprehend their meaning or information content.

2.7.2 Standard: Ratings WWW site explanations are user-friendly, easy-to-understand.

2.8 Ease of navigation

2.8 Standard: Ratings WWW site is easy to navigate, that is, it is easy for the consumer to find information on the site. The information is accessible.

Note: "Bells and whistles" (frills and clever uses of technology) may not be necessary to help consumer's navigate the site and access information.

3.0 Fees

3.1 No inducements for an award/rating

3.1.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site must contain sufficient information to determine if there are any fees or other inducements to receive the award/rating, and if there are fees or inducements, to determine what they are.

Note: If such information exists, standards 3.1.2-3.1.6 apply.

Note: If the website is silent about fees and inducements, it does not meet this standard

3.1.2 Standard: For awards, any fee for processing entries must be nominal, that is, less than $250 per entry, and there must not be any other consideration to receive the award, such as a demand for a link to the award-giving organization's WWW site as a condition of the award.

3.1.3 Standard: For unsolicited awards, there cannot be any fee or other consideration to receive the award or recognition for the award.

3.1.4 Standard: For ratings, there cannot be any fee or other consideration to be rated or to use or refer to the resultant ratings.

3.1.5 Standard: For accreditation, any fees must be reasonable, that is, cover only the costs of administering the accreditation/accreditation program.

3.1.6 Standard: For a ranking, there must be no fee or other consideration for inclusion on the list.

4.0 Award/rating process

4.1 Delineation of universe of sites eligible for award

4.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes what type of Internet health information sites is eligible for award/accreditation or is within the awards/ratings scope.

4.2 Methodology for identification/selection of Internet sites

4.2.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes explicit inclusion/exclusion standards for purposes of determining which Internet health information sites are eligible for the ratings organization's award or accreditation, or are within the scope of its rating/ranking.

4.2.2 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes how the ratings organization identifies and selects health information sites that meet its inclusion (eligibility) standards, including, for example, if it uses multiple judges to identify Internet health information sites to be rated, how judges' determinations are used to decide whether or not a site meets inclusion standards.

4.2.3 Guideline: For unsolicited awards, ratings, and rankings, the ratings organization assesses judges' inter-rater reliability in order to improve inclusion/exclusion standards and selection procedures.

Note: This standard does not apply to competitive awards or certifications (because the Internet health information site has to apply for them).

Rationale: With respect to ratings, how sites are selected determines, in part, the resultant ratings' utility. Only if sites are selected for rating according to defined standards using a reliable selection process, can the user know what types of sites were rated and be assured that all of the given type were rated. Rating only a grab-bag of sites, for example, may result in failure to rate other similar sites (thereby leading the consumer not to consider them) or to include sites that are not of the type of interest to the consumer (thereby leading the consumer to consider irrelevant sites).

4.3 Application procedures

4.3 Standard: For awards/accreditation programs, the ratings WWW site describes how to apply or to compete for the award or to obtain accreditation, and provides such information as the standards for award or accreditation.

Note: This standard does not apply to unsolicited awards, ratings or rankings.

4.4 Award/rating standards used

4.4 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes standards for determining awards, ratings, accreditation, or inclusion in the ranking.

4.5 Judging (judges & process used)

4.5.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes the number of judges, how judges are chosen, and each individual judge's qualifications/credentials, whether or not naming them (rather than making a general statement about judges qualification/credentials as a group).

4.5.2 Guideline: Ratings WWW site names the judges and their institutional affiliations.

4.5.3 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes how judges make decisions, including, for example, the sources of information (for example, confined to information displayed on the Internet health information site being rated), how judges' votes are tallied and used, and, if appropriate, how differences among judges' determinations are resolved to determine awards, ratings, accreditation, or inclusion in the ranking.

4.6 Verification

Note: These standards do not apply to awards, ratings, or rankings

4.6.1 Standard: If the ratings organization accredits sites, the ratings WWW site states whether or not the ratings organization verifies that the Internet health information site meets its standards. If states, complete 4.6.2.

4.6.2 Standard: The rating website states that the ratings organization verifies information to determine that the Internet health information site meets accreditation standards. If verifies, complete 4.6.3.

4.6.3 Standard: The rating web site describes how the ratings organization verifies information.

4.6.4 Guideline: The method the ratings organization says it uses to verify information can reasonably be expected to verify compliance to the organization's accreditation standards.

4.6.5 Standard: The rating website states whether or not the ratings organization monitors the Internet health information site's ongoing compliance with accreditation standards. If states, complete 4.6.6.

4.6.6 Standard: The rating web site states that the ratings organization monitors compliance with accreditation standards. If monitors, complete 4.6.7

4.6.7 Standard: The rating website describes how the ratings organization monitors compliance with accreditation standards.

4.6.8 Guideline: The methods the ratings organization says it uses to monitor Internet health information sites can reasonably be expected to verify ongoing compliance with the organization's accreditation standards.

4.7 Revisions of ratings

4.7 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes how often a rating, accreditation decision, or ranking is reviewed/revised, and the procedures for conducting such review and revision, including, for example, whether the ratings organization subjects the Internet health information site to a complete re-review or simply decides whether or not it is necessary to review the rating, accreditation decision, or ranking inclusion.

Note: This standard does not apply to awards.

5.0 Rating system

Note: These standards apply to ratings that consist of multiple attribute ratings, including their use for accreditation or for developing a ranking, if the ratings organization publishes multiple ratings that apply to the Internet health information site. They do not apply to awards.

5.1 Determining ratings

5.1 Standard: If there is one or more attribute ratings (for example, user-friendliness) based on individual component ratings, the ratings WWW site explains how the ratings organization constructs each attribute rating based on individual standards/ratings.

5.2 Determining overall rating

5.2 Standard: If there is an overall (global) rating for a WWW site, for example, based on 2 or more attribute ratings, the ratings WWW site explains how the ratings organization determines the overall, global rating, for example, '5-star WWW site.'

6.0 Quality Assurance Mechanisms/Feedback

6.1 Quality Assurance

6.1.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes what mechanisms the ratings organization uses to assure the quality of the procedures it uses to give awards, to rate or to accredit sites, or to include them in its ranking. Such QA activities may include, for example, testing rating procedures, and assessing the reliability of judgements.

6.1.2 Guideline: The ratings organization has written protocols/procedures, for example, to identify, select, and rate Internet health information sites, and to assure the quality of its performance in these regards.

6.2 Feedback from users about website & utility of award/rating

6.2.1 Standard: Ratings WWW site permits consumers to rate the award's/rating's utility for the stated purposes and the website's user-friendliness, etc, by rating such attributes and/or by entering narrative comments

6.2.2 Standard: Ratings WWW site describes how the ratings organization takes this feedback into account in the award's/rating's and or website's further development.

6.2.3 Guideline: Ratings WWW site states what steps it takes to protect the privacy of consumer's feedback/comments.

6.3 Feedback from rated WWW sites

6.3.1 Standard: For ratings and accreditation's, the ratings organization permits the rated/accredited Internet health information site to comment on its ratings of that site or its accreditation determination.

Note: This standard does not apply to award or rankings

6.3.2 Guideline: If the ratings organization permits feedback, the ratings WWW site describes how the ratings organization uses this feedback.

Note: This guideline does not apply to awards or rankings.