The measurement of food literacy has recently gained momentum globally. The aim of this paper is to review the literature in order to describe and analyse the measurement of adult food literacy. The objectives are to i) identify tools that explicitly measure food literacy in adults; ii) summarise their psychometric properties; and iii) critique tool items against the four domains and 11 components of food literacy, as conceptualised by Vidgen and Gallegos. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of seven databases (PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, EBSCOhost, A+ Education, and ProQuest) was undertaken. 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Papers reported on either the development of a tool to explicitly measure food literacy or a part thereof (n = 5); food literacy strategy indicators (n = 1); tools developed to evaluate a food literacy intervention (n = 3); or tools to measure food literacy as a characteristic within a broader study (n = 3). Six tools captured all four domains. None measured all components. Items measuring the same component varied considerably. Most tools referenced a theoretical framework, were validated and reliable. This review will assist practitioners select and develop tools for the measurement of food literacy in their context.

Background: The term “food literacy” is increasingly used to describe the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to meet food needs. The aim of this research was to determine content validity for an International Food Literacy Survey. Methods: The literature was searched for existing items to form an item pool to measure the eleven components of food literacy. Expert consensus was investigated through two related online surveys. Round 1 participants were researchers who had been involved in the development of a food literacy measure (n = 18). Round 2 participants were authors of papers who had used the term (n = 85). Level of agreement was determined quantitatively using the Content Validity Index and compared to open ended qualitative comments. Results: Consensus was achieved on 119 items. Components varied in the ease with which existing validated items could be found and the number of items achieving consensus. Items related to food prepared within the home were more likely to achieve consensus. Additional issues included limited shared understanding of the scope of the term, the validity of items varying according to context and a limited health focus. Conclusions: This study provides a valuable basis upon which to progress the development of a measure.