Wed, Aug 10, 2022
Volume 21, Issue 3 (May - June 2022)                   Payesh 2022, 21(3): 309-319 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.ACECR.IBCCRC.REC.1400.025

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Tavousi M, Haeri-Mehrizi A A, Sedighi J, Montazeri A, Mohammadi S, Ardestani M S, et al . Health Literacy Instrument for Adults-Short Form (HELIA-SF): Development and psychometric properties. Payesh. 2022; 21 (3) :309-319
1- Health Metrics Research Center, Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2- Health Education and Promotion Office, Deputy of Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (261 Views)
Objective(s): Since usually health literacy should be assessed in complex health care settings, this study aimed to develop a short version of the Health Literacy Instrument for Adults (HELIA-SF).
Methods: In this methodological study, the research team selected a number of items from the main instrument covering the main constructs of the HELIA. The selection was based on the most relevant items to each construct. A group of 12 experts and ten adults assessed content and face validity respectively. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess structural validity. The reliability of the instruments was evaluated by internal correlation (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) and intraclass correlation (ICC).
Results: A nine-item questionnaire was developed. Experts identified the content validity of the short version as desirable (the CVR was more than 0.56 the CVI was more than 0.79). Also, the face validity as assessed by ten adults was satisfactory. The results obtained from exploratory factor analysis showed a two-factor structure for the questionnaire namely basic skills and decision-making skills that jointly accounted for about 61% of variance observed. Furthermore, the confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable fit indexes for the data: X2/df =2.20, GFI=0.95, CFI=0.97, NFI=0.95, NNFI=0.96, SRMR=0.068, and RMSEA=0.074. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and ICC for each of the two dimensions were satisfactory (alpha = 0.84 and 0.81 and ICC = 0.85 and 0.82). The values for the whole items were 0.91 and 0.81, respectively.
Conclusion: The HELIA-SF, including nine items and two subscales (basic skills and decision-making skills) was found to be reliable and valid instrument to measure health literacy in adults. This version is suitable for measuring health literacy in different urban and rural population groups due to its short and concise nature.
Full-Text [PDF 1237 kb]   (193 Downloads)    
type of study: Research | Subject: Public Health
Received: 2022/05/14 | Accepted: 2022/06/6 | ePublished ahead of print: 2022/06/11 | Published: 2022/07/19

1. Smith BJ, Tang KC, Nutbeam D. WHO health promotion glossary: new terms. Health Promotion International 2006;21:340-5 [DOI:10.1093/heapro/dal033]
2. Schnitzer AE, Rosenzweig M, Harris B. Health literacy: A survey of the issues and solutions. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 2011;15:164-79 [DOI:10.1080/15398285.2011.573347]
3. Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: What is it? Journal of Health Communication 2010; 15: 9-19 [DOI:10.1080/10810730.2010.499985]
4. Kindig DA, Panzer AM, Nielsen-Bohlman L. Health Literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004 [DOI:10.17226/10883]
5. Baker DW. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006;21:878-883 [DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00540.x]
6. Peerson A, Saunders M. Health literacy revisited: what do we mean and why does it matter?. Health Promotion International 2009; 24:285-296 [DOI:10.1093/heapro/dap014]
7. Kickbusch I, Pelikan JM, Apfel F, Tsouros AD. Health Literacy. The solid facts. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2013 [Cited 8 June, 2017]; Available from: http: //
8. Vandenbosch J, Van den Broucke S, Vancorenland S, Avalosse H, Verniest R, Callens M. Health literacy and the use of healthcare services in Belgium. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:1032-1038 [DOI:10.1136/jech-2015-206910]
9. Sorensen K, Pelikan JM, Rothlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, et al. Health literacy in Europe: Comparative results of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). European Journal of Public Health 2015; 25:1053-1058 [DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckv043]
10. Paasche‐Orlow MK, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nielsen‐Bohlman LT, Rudd RR. The prevalence of limited health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2005; 20:175-184 [DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40245.x]
11. Samadbeik M, Garavand S, Maryam Sohrabi Zadeh M, Koshki N, Mohammadi Z. The Study of Characteristics of Health Literacy Instruments for Computer-Based Applications: A Review Article. Journal of Health and Biomedical Informatics 2015;2(3):195-203 [Persian]
12. Tavousi M, Haeri-Mehrizi AA, Rakhshani F, Rafiefar SH, Soleymanian A, Sarbandi F, et al. Development and validation of a short and easy-to-use instrument for measuring health literacy: The Health Literacy Instrument for Adults (HELIA). BMC Public Health. 2020;20:656. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-020-08787-2]
13. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 1975; 28: 563-575 [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
14. Waltz C, Bausell R. Nursing research: Design, statistics, and computer analysis. 1st Edition, Philadelphia: Davis Philadelphia; 1981
15. Polit D F, Yang F. 1st Edition, Measurement and the Measurement of Change: A Primer for the Health Professions; Wolters Kluwer: PhiladelphiaUSA, 2016
16. Gelaye B, Lohsoonthorn V, Lertmeharit S, Pensuksan WC, Sanchez SE, Lemma S, et al. Construct Validity and Factor Structure of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Epworth Sleepiness Scale in a Multi-National Study of African, South East Asian and South American College Students. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e116383 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116383]
17. Marsh HW, Hau K, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in over generalizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 2004; 11: 320 -341 [DOI:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2]
18. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Muller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of fit measures. MPR-online 2003; 8: 23-74
19. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2st Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey, 2004 [DOI:10.4324/9781410610904]
20. Bowman J, Lannin N, Cook C, McCluskey A. Development and psychometric testing of the Clinician Readiness for Measuring Outcomes Scale. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2009; 15: 76-84 [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00957.x]
21. Haeri Mehrizi AL, Tavousi M, Rafieifar S, Solimanian A, Sarbandi F, Ardestani MS, et al. Health Literacy for Iranian Adults (HELIA): The confirmatory factor analysis. Payesh 2016;3:251-257 [Persian]
22. Tavousi M, Sedighi J, Montazeri A, Zarei F, Rostami R, Mohammadi S. Psychometric properties of health literacy measures in Persian biomedical literature: A systematic review. Payesh 2021:20; 773-785 [Persian] [DOI:10.52547/payesh.20.6.773]
23. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in Adults: A new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1995; 10:537-541 [DOI:10.1007/BF02640361]
24. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling 1999;38:33-42 [DOI:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00116-5]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 All Rights Reserved | Payesh (Health Monitor)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb