Search Tufts Medicine

The HLCS-C was based on the conceptual model of cancer caregiver health literacy created by Yuen et al in 2016. This model was formed through focus groups with caregivers, cancer patients, and oncology health care providers. The development of the scale focused on content validity to ensure that themes covered in the items were maximally applicable to caregivers' lived experiences.

Content validity was undertaken to ascertain whether the content was appropriate and relevant. Complete ranges of attributes under the study were subjected to appointed expert panel to assess all intrinsic aspects of the questionnaire. The panel analyzed the stability of the questionnaire despite cultural or linguistic re-framing.'

Conducted a systematic mapping review of interventions and assessment tools addressing Key Concepts. Authors discovered no instrument that addressed all the Key Concepts or that was suitable as an outcome measure in trials of the IHC learning resources. The authors then developed a database of multiple-choice items that could be used as outcome measures in the two IHC trials in Uganda as well as for other purposes. The Claim Evaluation Tools database includes four or more items that address each of the Key Concepts. These items were then developed in four steps, using qualitative and quantitative methods over a 3-year period.

Items were generated by drawing from the concepts of Basic Psychological Needs Theory. An initial 32 items were revised following the feedback of a student focus group and expert panel of nurses and researchers. Finally, a pilot test and component analysis were performed on a 15-item version of the scale. Five problematic items were removed to produce the final 10-item version.

The original REALMD-20 was translated into Brazilian Portuguese. A few terms were replaced with culturally appropriate, equivalent terms prior to a pre-test of the tool conducted through face to face interviews. Volunteers' feedback was used to evaluate the difficulty of each item. Items were then arranged in ascending order of difficulty. Finally, the tool was back-translated to ensure consistency with the original version.

The factor structure (1 main factor and 4 subfactors) was tested with a confirmatory factor analyses and yielded satisfying results (χ2[734]= 772,58, p= 0,157; RMSEA=0,021; CFI = 0,966; TLI = 0,964).

The English version of the NVS was forward and back translated. Next, the Delphi method was used to complete cultural adaption to ensure that the nutrition label used in the Chinese version was both familiar to Chinese culture and comparable to the original NVS. Finally, cognitive testing was performed among a sample of the general public.

The development of the tool included cultural adaptation of the original NVS, and translation of the tool by two bilingual experts in public health. The back-translation from version 2 to English was done by an English-literate translator, who was unaware of the research objectives and did not take part in any of the previous steps. The final version was pre-tested in a pilot study.

A native Mandarin speaker translated the tranditional Chinse S-TOFHLA version into simplified Chinese.

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.

Based on the NAL and TOFHLA

Developed in 3 phases. Phase 1: Test item stimuli were selected from health educational materials for chronic diseases used in clinical settings and from other prose and non-prose documents used in clinical and public health settings. 33 items were generated but after evaluation by an expert panel of 12 health care professionals - 11 items were excluded. A preliminary test was completed with face-to-face interviews with a convenience sample of adult Korean participants and 4 more items were then eliminated to include 18 items.

Developed in 3 main phases. Phase 1: 35 items were generated in English and translated into Portuguese then back-translated. Redudant items were removed. Phase 2: The team conducted cognitive-based assesments. Phase 3: The team assesed the internal reliability and construct validity of the measure.

Used a Delphi Panel to discuss domains of health literacy and evaluate various definitions of health literacy. Researchers also conducted and recorded 6 focus group sessions to elicit their understanding of cancer health literacy. For both groups, a qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the transcripts. Transcripts from both groups were supplemented with recent research reports and the research team examined the materials to each write 25 test items. The research team met and revised a list of 112 items that was pilot tested with cognitive interviews with 25 patients diagnosed with cancer. Items identified in the interviews as redudant, unclear, or slightly related to cancer health literacy were eliminated to result in 76 items.

Items were selected in 2 phases. Phase I developed 225 items that were grouped into three literacy formats (prose, document, quantitative) based on the goals of health literacy outlined in the 2004 Institute of Medicine report on health literacy. During Phase II, 98 items were administered to individuals from a wide range of ages, educational backgrounds, and across genders and race/ethnicity groups. An updated 20-item paper and pencil version is available that links performance to descriptive levels of health literacy (below basic, basic, intermediate, and proficient).

Test items were developed to sample a broad range of health-related content in Spanish and English using a combination of classical test theory and IRT techniques, with validation against established measures of health literacy and health-related quality of life. Extensive analyses of differential item functioning (DIF), and scaling to ensure measure equivalence were completed. Full data in the test manual, available for free download at http://www.flightvidas.org.

The content validity of MeHLit was tested qualitatively and quantitatively. In the qualitative content validity assessment , 10 key experts including: 2 health education specialist, 3 communication specialists, 3 media specialists, and 2 psychologist from a variety of Iranian public universities were asked to comment on the items in terms of wording, grammar, location in the sclae, choice of vocabulary, appropriateness and scoring. In the quantitative content validity assessment, the content validity ratio (CVR) and the content validity index (CVI) were calculated. The content validity was assessed by 10 experts. The experts determined the content validity ratio of each item with the criteria of "necessary", "not neccesary but useful" and "not neccessary". CVR was calculated through the following formula.

CVR=NeN/2
n/2
where nE stands for the number of experts who have selected the option “essential” and N is the total number of experts. According to Lawshe’s table [31], the CVR higher than 0.62 for 10 individuals indicate the necessity of the item at a statistically significant level (P = 0.05). The Content Validity Index (CVI) was evaluated by the same 10 experts using a 4-point Likert scale that rated questionnaire items based on ‘simplicity’, ‘relevance’ and ‘clarity’ based on Waltz & Bausell’s content validity index [31]. CVI was calculated according to the following formula:

CVI=Number of raters chosing points3 and4/Total number of raters
A CVI score of 0.78 and above is considered acceptable [30].