The state of the science of health literacy measurement

Abstract

Abstract. Advancing health literacy (HL) research requires high-quality HL measures. This article provides an overview of the state of the science of HL measurement at the level of the individual: where the field started, currently is, and should be going. It is divided into eight key sections looking at (1) the history of HL measurement, (2) the relationship between HL definitions and measurement, (3) the HL conceptual domains most and least frequently measured, (4) the methods used to validate HL measures, (5) the characteristics of the participants in the measurement validation studies, (6) the practical considerations related to administering HL measures, (7) the advantages and disadvantages of using objective versus subjective HL measures, and (8) future directions for HL measurement.Based on the material presented in this article, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, there is an enormous proliferation of HL measures and this growth presents both opportunities and challenges for the field. Second, to move the field forward, there is an urgent need to better align HL measurement with definitions of HL. Third, some HL domains, such as numeracy, are measured more often than others, such as speaking and listening. Consequently, it is important to think about novel mechanisms to measure HL domains that are rarely measured. Fourth, HL measures are most often developed, validated, and refined using classical measurement approaches. However, strong empirical and practical rationales suggest making an assertive shift toward using modern measurement approaches. Fifth, most HL measures are not well validated for use in minority populations; consequently, future validation studies should be mindful of validation samples. Sixth, HL measures can be administered using multiple modes, most frequently via paper-and-pencil surveys. Identifying which mode of administration is most suitable requires reflecting on the underlying measurement purpose and the characteristics of the participants being measured. These considerations should also be made when deciding between a subjective versus objective HL measure.Cumulatively, this article provides tools to help readers select and use the most appropriate measures of HL for their needs. It also provides rationale and strategies for moving the science of HL measurement forward. Numerous scientific calls and proposals followed to develop and test HL measures in support of that recommendation [30]. Now, more than a decade later, over 150 HL measures exist, demonstrating a sweeping response to the scientific calls and reflecting tremendous productivity in this area [17,34,37]. This growth presents both opportunities and challenges for the field [26,42]. In one respect, each of

The Impact of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program on Health Literacy: A Pre-Post Study Using a Multi-Dimensional Health Literacy Instrument

“…In 2013, a pre-post longitudinal evaluation of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program among middle-aged and older adults was conducted across 17 states in the United States. This study reported that the program led to a statistically significant improvement in health literacy, quantified in this study using a limited measure assessing participants' confidence filling out medical forms [11].…”

A New Objective Health Numeracy Test for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric Properties

“…Objective instruments for measuring health numeracy can induce a burden in respondents that results in them struggling to answer the items [15]. Schapira et al [13] therefore emphasized the importance of including items with an appropriate level of difficulty.…”

“…In contrast, an objective instrument assesses the ability to process numeric information by asking respondents to answer specific questions, such as about the time to take the next medication. A subjective instrument requires less cognitive effort in responding to questions, whereas an objective instrument assesses health numeracy more accurately [15]. The third issue is related to the lack of psychometric properties.…”

Social insurance literacy: a scoping review on how to define and measure it

“…Health literacy is, since it is the most established concept, also the one which has resulted in the largest number of measures. One review [47] has counted more than 150 measures and concludes that still no "gold standard" has emerged. Most measures are primarily focused on measuring health literacy on an individual level.…”

“…Other measures that cover similar aspects are the Japanese functional, interactive and critical health literacy scales, which have also been translated to a Swedish context [49,50]. The use of subjective versus objective measures has been discussed by Nguyen et al [47], where both have advantages and drawbacks: subjective measures are generally easier to carry out, with less cognitive effort compared to objective tests of individual capabilities; a limitation is the lack of information about whether the reported skills are related to actual skills.…”