A short assessment of health literacy (SAHL) in the Netherlands

BMC Public Health

Mirjam P Fransen¹  Karlijn EF Leenaars³  Marie-Louise Essink-Bot¹  Henk Pander Maat² 

[1]Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

[2]Department of Languages, Literature and Communication, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Trans 10, 3512, JK Utrecht, The Netherlands

[3]WU Social Sciences, Health and Society, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 Wageningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Reading comprehension;    Word recognition;    Testing;    Health literacy;   

Others  :  1126682
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-990

 received in 2014-06-04, accepted in 2014-09-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

An earlier attempt to adapt the REALM (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine) word recognition test to Dutch was not entirely successful due to ceiling effects. In contrast to REALM, the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL) assesses both word recognition and comprehension in the health domain. The aim of this study was to design, test and validate a SAHL for Dutch patients (SAHL-D).

Methods

We pretested 95 health-related terms (n = 127) and selected 33 best performing items for validation in a quantitative survey (n = 329). For each item, a correct recognition (1 point) and comprehension (1 point) contributed to the total score (scale 0–66). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was examined by analyzing association patterns of SAHL-D with educational level, objective and subjective health literacy, prose literacy, and vocabulary. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, with prose literacy as the reference standard, determined optimal cut-off scores.

Results

Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77 for recognition, 0.79 for comprehension, and 0.86 for the total score. Scores significantly differed substantially by educational level. Association patterns mostly confirmed a priori expectations in direction and strength, thereby supporting the construct validity of the SAHL-D. The optimal cut-off scores for differentiating between adequate and low literacy lie between 52.5 and 55.5. A shorter SAHL-D version presenting 22 terms offers a comparable prediction performance.

Conclusion

The results provide positive evidence for the reliability and validity of the SAHL-D. The SAHL-D can be applied to analyze the role of health literacy in health and healthcare, and for the development and evaluation of targeted interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Maat et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stahl S, Hiebert EH: A problem for reading comprehension assessment. In Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Edited by Paris SG, Stahl SA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005:161-186.
• [2]White S: Adult functional literacy. Connecting text features, task demands and participant skills. New York/London: Routledge; 2011.
• [3]Remund D: Financial Literacy Explicated: The Case for a Clearer Definition in an Increasingly Complex Economy. J Consum Aff 2008, 44(2):276-295.
• [4]Hobbs R, Frost R: Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Read Res Q 2003, 38(3):330-355.
• [5]Ratzan SC, Parker RM: Introduction. In National Library of Medicine Current Bibliographies in Medicine: Health Literacy. Edited by Selden CR, Zorn M, Ratzan SC, Parker RM. Bethesda MD: Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000:161-186.
• [6]Mancuso JM: Assessment and measurement of health literacy: an integrative review of the literature. Nurs Health Sci 2009, 11(1):77-79.
• [7]Jordan JE, Osborne RH, Buchbinder R: Critical appraisal of health literacy indices revealed variable underlying constructs, narrow content and psychometric weaknesses. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(4):366-379.
• [8]Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, Brand H: Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Nutbeam D: Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21th century. Health Promot Int 2000, 15(3):259-267.
• [10]Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Mayeaux EJ, George RB, Murphy PWY, Crouch MA: Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993, 25(6):391-395.
• [11]Fransen MP, Van Schaik TM, Twickler TB, Essink-Bot ML: Applicability of internationally available health literacy measures in The Netherlands. J Health Commun 2011, 16(3):134-149.
• [12]Nurss JR, Baker DW, Davis TC, Parker RM, Williams M: Difficulties in functional health literacy screening in Spanish-speaking adults. Journal of Reading 1995, 38(8):632-637.
• [13]Lee SY, Bender DE, Ruiz RE, Cho YI: Development of an easy-to use Spanish health literacy test. Health Serv Res 2006, 41(4):1392-1412.
• [14]Lee SY, Stucky BD, Lee JY, Rozier RG, Bender DE: Short assessment of health literacy – Spanish and English: a comparable test of health literacy for Spanish and English speakers. Health Serv Res 2010, 45(4):1105-1120.
• [15]Thesaurus zorg en welzijn. [http://www.thesauruszorgenwelzijn.nl webcite]
• [16]Stichting Cito Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling: Exam 8 higher secondary education. [Adviestoets havo/vwo, toets 8]. Arnhem; 2005.
• [17]Keselman A, Tse T, Cromwell J, Browne A, Ngo L, Zeng Q: Assessing consumer health vocabulary familiarity: an exploratory study. J Med Internet Res 2007, 9(1):5.
• [18]Brabers A, Reitsma-van Rooijen M, De Jong D: Consumers panel health care: Basic report with information on the panel [Consumentenpanel Gezondheidszorg: Basisrapport met informatie over het panel]. Utrecht: Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research; 2012.
• [19]UNESCO Institute for Statistics: ISCED: International standard classification of education. 2014. [http://www.uis.UNESCO.org/Education/Pages/international-standard-classification-of-education.aspx webcite]
• [20]HLS-EU Consortium: Comparative Report on Health Literacy in Eight EU Member States. [http://www.health-literacy.eu webcite]
• [21]Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP: Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med 2005, 3(6):514-522.
• [22]OECD, Statistics Canada: Literacy for Life: Further Results from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. OECD Publishing; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/9789264091269-en webcite (accessed August 8, 2014)
• [23]Houtkoop W, Allen J, Buisman M, Fouarge D, Van der Velden R: Kernvaardigheden in Nederland: Resultaten van de Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) (Basic abilities in The Netherlands: Results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL)). http://www.piaac.nl/_images/user/20131008093428ecbo.12-123_Kernvaardigheden_in_NederlandA00686.pdf webcite (accessed August 8, 2014)
• [24]Hanson-Divers EC: Developing a medical achievement reading test to evaluate patient literacy skills: a preliminary study. J Health Care Poor Underserved 1997, 8(1):56-69.
• [25]Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR: The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995, 10:537-541.
• [26]Pander Maat HLW, Lentz L: Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 80(1):113-119.
• [27]Baker DW: The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21(8):878-883.
• [28]Peerson A, Saunders M: Men’s health literacy: Advancing evidence and priorities. Crit Pub Health 2009, 19(3–4):441-456.