↓ Skip to main content

Cultural adaptation and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): robust nine-dimension Danish language confirmatory factor model

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
Cultural adaptation and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): robust nine-dimension Danish language confirmatory factor model
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2887-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helle Terkildsen Maindal, Lars Kayser, Ole Norgaard, Anne Bo, Gerald R. Elsworth, Richard H. Osborne

Abstract

Health literacy is an important construct in population health and healthcare requiring rigorous measurement. The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), with nine scales, measures a broad perception of health literacy. This study aimed to adapt the HLQ to the Danish setting, and to examine the factor structure, homogeneity, reliability and discriminant validity. The HLQ was adapted using forward-backward translation, consensus conference and cognitive interviews (n = 15). Psychometric properties were examined based on data collected by face-to-face interview (n = 481). Tests included difficulty level, composite scale reliability and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cognitive testing revealed that only minor re-wording was required. The easiest scale to respond to positively was 'Social support for health', and the hardest were 'Navigating the healthcare system' and 'Appraisal of health information'. CFA of the individual scales showed acceptably high loadings (range 0.49-0.93). CFA fit statistics after including correlated residuals were good for seven scales, acceptable for one. Composite reliability and Cronbach's α were >0.8 for all but one scale. A nine-factor CFA model was fitted to items with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals allowed. Given this restricted model, the fit was satisfactory. The HLQ appears robust for its intended application of assessing health literacy in a range of settings. Further work is required to demonstrate sensitivity to measure changes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 45 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 20%
Social Sciences 20 11%
Psychology 13 7%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 51 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,113,485
of 16,720,411 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#390
of 1,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,344
of 268,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#15
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,720,411 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,807 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 268,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.