Search Tufts Medicine

Review of Internet-based patient education materials produced by the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society and the Society of Vascular Surgery noting most commonly used words. Listened to audio recordings of vascular surgeon-patient encounters, then combined both resources for the 100 most common words.

Review of Internet-based patient education materials produced by the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society and the Society of Vascular Surgery noting most commonly used words. Listened to audio recordings of vascular surgeon-patient encounters, then combined both resources for the 100 most common words.

Initial 34-item assessment was created in 2001. Focus groups consisting of HIV-infected patients evaluated items for comprehension and clarity.

A 2-step design process was used. In the construction phase, focus group studies and a literature review were conducted to generate a pool of items. The testing phase involved a psychometric evaluation and pilot-testing of the scale on hypertensive Korean Americans.

The FLLANK questionnaire was designed by the developers of ND to assess food label literacy in elementary school children exposed to a nutrition knowledge intervention.

The CHLCC was developed with reference to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Chinese Health Literacy Scale for Diabetes was developed with reference to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy model.

Expert review returned a Scale Content Validity Index of 0.90 after deletion of items with individual content validity index of <.50. Scale Content Validity index of sub-scales after deletion of items with individual content validity index <.50 ranged 0.80 - 0.98.

A pool of 102 items was generated based on empirical referents, which after expert review, field study, and content validity, was reduced to 29 items with 3 subscales. Rasch analysis was also performed to assess the unidimensionality of the construct and item adequacy. Rasch analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional and the majority of the items demonstrated good fit. The final instrument is a 24-item questionnaire.

The instrument was developed by an expert panel through a Delphi process. The panel consisted of 5 experts who were fluent in both English and Spanish and had extensive experience working with Spanish speakers in educational, medical, and public health settings. The Delphi process involved 2 steps. The first was translation of the 66 REALM medical terms into Spanish. The translation took into account both the dictionary definition and the commonality of usage in daily conversations. The second step was selection of the key and distractor for each REALM medical term according to 3 criteria: (1) the key and distractor should be no more complicated or difficult than the medical term; (2) the relation of the key to the medical term should be a subset, an example, a larger class,
a synonym, or a function; and (3) the distractor should be an incorrect but plausible choice in terms of its association with the medical term and it should be comparable in length and complexity to the key. Discrepancies that arose during the Delphi process were discussed and resolved among panel members during 3 half-day meetings held between December 2002 and March 2003. The Delphi process produced both the English and Spanish drafts of the new instrument.

A health literacy panel was created. 5 dimensions of health were considered. Each member of the research team first chose 100 terms from the literacy panel. All terms were consolidated. 5 healthcare clinicians and experts were invited to examine the list. These experts are physicians from family medicine, obstetrics & gynecology, and neurology, a surgeon of physical medicine and rehabilitation, and a vice director of a medical center who is an expert of public health. The 90 terms that concurrently appear in every individual list are kept, and 50 additional terms are then added as suggested by the expert group. After 2 rounds of Delphi technique and discussion, 125 items reached a common agreement. In the last stage, 5 items were replaced based on an initial reliability test. S health knowledge scale was developed to screen unreliable responses. The health knowledge scale contains 10 questions that are popular in clinical offices. This scale is used to assure the truth of a respondent’s reaction to the self-response scale. Additionally, the health knowledge scale may provide additional evidence for the validity of the health literacy scale by examining the mutual relationship of health knowledge and health literacy. Ultimately the 125 items were reduced to 66 because that is what other scales did.

Based on the premise of THLS, this research adopted an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in an attempt to shorten the list of the scale by identifying the items that will have the greatest loading in a respondent’s health literacy on one hand, and can represent the majority of variance of the original scale on the other.

The scale was developed through an iterative process that included item generation from experts and parents, and cognitive interviewing to assess item comprehension. A group of experts in pediatric health services research, pediatric pharmacy, pediatric psychology, public health, and health literacy were assembled to generate a list of initial possible scale items.. Question development was also guided by reviewing previously validated math and literacy tests.

Scale development was guided by a panel of experts in general pediatrics, health services research, pharmacy, psychology, public health, and health literacy, as well as by parents. The development process was also informed by a review of previously validated assessments of literacy and numeracy.

Conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of health care consumers; consultated with health care, education, and pschometrics experts; and assessed readability of scale.

Started with an existing operational definition of cancer literacy and sought patients' perspective on this concept via in-depth interviews.Translation and back-translation from Italian to English performed. Cognitive interviews were done to test the survey prior to fielding.

Scale based on traditional division of graph comprehension skills: 1) abilty to read the data, 2) ability to read between the data, and 3) ability to read beyond the data. All graphs embedded in a medical context and used frequently used graph types.

Instrument derived from the validated "Short Assessment of Health Literacy for Spanish-Speaking Adults (SAHLSA)". Instrument translated from Spanish to Portuguese and then back into Spanish by independent professionals.