Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Validation of a Functional Health Literacy Test

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Background: Three validated functional health literacy tests (FHLTs) have been developed for use in healthcare settings. However, none of these tests has been shown to be readily applicable for use in the general public.

Objective: To develop and validate an FHLT for screening the functional health literacy level of the general public and patients in healthcare settings.

Methods: Maze procedure, expert judgment, and interviews with 55 respondents were used to develop the 21-item FHLT, which was modified from public health education material entitled Guidelines on Taking Medicines published by the Singapore Health Promotion Board. The finalized FHLT was then distributed by convenience sampling among eligible English-speaking respondents from the general public and rheumatic patients in Singapore. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the sociodemographic characteristics and health status of the respondents. Cronbach’s α was used to assess the reliability of the test. Partial correlation coefficients were used to investigate the convergent validity between scores on the FHLT and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), and the divergent validity between the FHLT score and education level. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Data were analyzed from 223 respondents from the general public (mean [SD] age: 43.8 [14.2] years, 49.3% female, 45.7% with >12 years of education) and 200 rheumatic patients (mean [SD] age: 46.6 [14.7], 70.5% female, 45.5% with >12 years of education). Cronbach’s α for the FHLT was 0.72 and 0.68 for the general public and rheumatic patients, respectively, suggesting adequate reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated with a strong correlation between scores on the FHLT and REALM (0.65 [p<0.01] for the general public, 0.68 [p<0.01] for rheumatic patients). Divergent validity was shown by the weak correlation between the FHLT score and education level (0.33 [p<0.01] for the general public, 0.28 [p<0.01] for rheumatic patients). Test-retest reliability of the FHLT among rheumatic patients (n = 112, response rate = 56%) was shown to be high (ICC = 0.95). ICC was not calculated for the test-retest reliability among the general public because of a poor response rate of 9%.

Conclusions: The 21-item FHLT has been shown to be a reliable and valid screening test for measuring functional health literacy levels of the general public as well as patients in healthcare settings. The availability of the FHLT would contribute to the effectiveness of health education programs and better health-related outcomes in the general population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andrus MR, Roth MT. Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy 2002; 22(3): 282–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 537–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker DW. Reading between the lines: deciphering the connections between literacy and health. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 14: 315–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Speros C. Health literacy: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2005; 50(6): 633–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morrow D, Clark D, Tu W, et al. Correlates of health literacy in patients with chronic heart failure. Gerontologist 2006; 46(5): 669–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rutherford J, Holman R, MacDonald J, et al. Low literacy: a hidden problem in family planning clinics. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32(4): 235–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schillinger D, Barton LR, Karter AJ, et al. Does literacy mediate the relationship between education and health outcomes? A study of a low-income population with diabetes. Public Health Rep 2006; 121(3): 245–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guerra CE, Dominguez F, Shea JA. Literacy and knowledge, attitudes, and behavior about colorectal cancer screening. J Health Commun 2005; 10(7): 651–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM. The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Med 2005; 118(4): 371–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weiss BD. Health literacy: an important issue for communicating health information to patients. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 2001; 64(11): 603–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleinpeter MA. Health literacy affects peritoneal dialysis performance and outcomes. Adv Perit Dial 2003; 19: 115–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the Newest Vital Sign. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3(6): 514–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gong DA, Lee JY, Rozier RG, et al. Development and testing of the Test Of Functional Health Literacy in Dentistry (TOFHLiD). J Public Health Dent 2007; 67(2): 105–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10(10): 537–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. King DK. Reaction and questions for discussion re: the NVS health literacy assessment. Ann Fam Med 2005 Dec 9 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/eletters/3/6/514 [Accessed 2009 Jun 19]

  16. Bennet IM. Some questions about screening for literacy. Ann Fam Med 2005 Dec 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/eletters/3/6/514 [Accessed 2009 Jun 18]

  17. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, et al. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 1999; 38(1): 33–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. DeWalt DA, Pignone MP. Reading is fundamental: the relationship between literacy and health. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 1943–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheah J. Chronic disease management: a Singapore perspective. BMJ 2001; 323(7319): 990–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis TC, Wolf MS. Health literacy: implications for family medicine. Fam Med 2004 Sep; 36(8): 595–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, et al. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287(20): 2691–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. National Center for Education Statistics. National adult literacy survey [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=93275 [Accessed 2007 Mar 6]

  23. Aldridge MD. Writing and designing readable patient education materials. Nephrol Nurs J 2004; 31(4): 373–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Long SW, et al. Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients. Fam Med 1991; 23(6): 433–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rye J. Cloze procedures and the teaching of reading. London: Heinemann Educational, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  26. Health Promotion Board, Singapore. Guidelines on taking medicines [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/ere/ere0307.asp?id=24110 [Accessed 2007 Mar 6]

  27. Rabin R, Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, et al. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Qual Life Res 2003; 12(1): 87–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 22: 293–6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Guyatt G, King D, Stubbing FD, et al. Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 187–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Aiken LR. Psychological testing and assessment. Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  33. Slosson RJL. Slosson oral reading tests — revised. East Aurora (NY): Slosson Educational Publishers, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  34. Miller DP, Brownlee CD, McCoy TP, et al. The effect of health literacy on knowledge and receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a survey study. BMC Fam Pract 2007 Mar 30; 8: 16 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852801 [Accessed 2009 Jun 18]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dowse R, Ehlers M. Medicine labels incorporating pictograms: do they influence understanding and adherence? Patient Educ Couns 2005; 58(1): 63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kleinbeck C. Reaching positive diabetes outcomes for patients with low literacy. Home Healthc Nurse 2005; 23(1): 16–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoffmann T, Worrall L. Designing effective written health education materials: considerations for health professionals. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(19): 1166–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore

    Xu-Hao Zhang

  2. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

    Julian Thumboo & Kok-Yong Fong

  3. Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

    Julian Thumboo & Kok-Yong Fong

  4. Discipline of Pharmacy & Experimental Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia

    Shu-Chuen Li

Authors
  1. Xu-Hao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Thumboo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kok-Yong Fong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shu-Chuen Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu-Chuen Li.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, XH., Thumboo, J., Fong, KY. et al. Development and Validation of a Functional Health Literacy Test. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 2, 169–178 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11314850-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11314850-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation