↓ Skip to main content

Measuring health literacy in community agencies: a Bayesian study of the factor structure and measurement invariance of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring health literacy in community agencies: a Bayesian study of the factor structure and measurement invariance of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ)
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1754-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerald R. Elsworth, Alison Beauchamp, Richard H. Osborne

Abstract

The development of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), reported in 2013, attracted widespread international interest. While the original study samples were drawn from clinical and home-based aged-care settings, the HLQ was designed for the full range of healthcare contexts including community-based health promotion and support services. We report a follow-up study of the psychometric properties of the HLQ with respondents from a diverse range of community-based organisations with the principal goal of contributing to the development of a soundly validated evidence base for its use in community health settings. Data were provided by 813 clients of 8 community agencies in Victoria, Australia who were administered the HLQ during the needs assessment stage of the Ophelia project, a health literacy-based intervention. Most analyses were conducted using Bayesian structural equation modelling that enables rigorous analysis of data but with some relaxation of the restrictive requirements for zero cross-loadings and residual correlations of 'classical' confirmatory factor analysis. Scale homogeneity was investigated with one-factor models that allowed for the presence of small item residual correlations while discriminant validity was studied using the inter-factor correlations and factor loadings from a full 9-factor model with similar allowance for small residual correlations and cross-loadings. Measurement invariance was investigated scale-by-scale using a model that required strict invariance of item factor loadings, thresholds, residual variances and co-variances. All HLQ scales were found to be homogenous with composite reliability ranging from 0.80 to 0.89. The factor structure of the HLQ was replicated and 6 of the 9 scales were found to exhibit clear-cut discriminant validity. With a small number of exceptions involving non-invariance of factor loadings, strict measurement invariance was established across the participating organisations and the gender, language background, age and educational level of respondents. The HLQ is highly reliable, even with only 4 to 6 items per scale. It provides unbiased mean estimates of group differences across key demographic indicators. While measuring relatively narrow constructs, the 9 dimensions are clearly separate and therefore provide fine-grained data on the multidimensional area of health literacy. These analyses provide researchers, program managers and policymakers with a range of robust evidence by which they can make judgements about the appropriate use of the HLQ for their community-based setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Psychology 8 8%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,668,543
of 24,220,739 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,537
of 8,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,192
of 326,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#116
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,220,739 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.