ArticlePloS one2018
Validation of a newly adapted Chinese version of the Newest Vital Sign instrument.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health literacy model integrating health education, health behaviors, self-rated health, and socioeconomic status in the Chinese population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and Testing of Physical Literacy Scales for Chinese Elementary School Students - China, 2022.China CDC weekly · 2025Article
- Adaptation of a health literacy screener for computerized, self-administered use by U.S. adults.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Real-world insights on nutritional awareness and behaviors among preconception and pregnant women in three Asia Pacific countries.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument for Chinese Lactating Women: A Preliminary Study.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Awareness of Nutrition and Supplements Among Pregnant and Preconception Women: A Real-World Study in Vietnam.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Physical Comorbidity and Health Literacy Mediate the Relationship Between Social Support and Depression Among Patients With Hypertension.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- The Newest Vital Sign: Frequently Asked Questions.Health literacy research and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a Chinese version of the Newest Vital Sign (NVS-CHN) instrument and evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsTo deal with cross-cultural adaptation problems, after translation of the NVS into Chinese, the Delphi method was used for experts and cognitive testing was used for participants. A cross-sectional study including 351 participants was conducted to assess the validity of the NVS-CHN. Internal reliability, criterion validity, and known-groups validity were investigated. The NVS-CHN was further validated against a suitable standard, the Chinese Citizen Health Literacy Questionnaire (CCHLQ).
resultsThe validity of the NVS-CHN was established by conducting a Delphi survey (three rounds) and cognitive testing (three rounds). Cronbach's alpha was 0.71, indicating that internal consistency was acceptable. A Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.68 between the NVS-CHN and CCHLQ revealed excellent criterion validity. Differences in NVS-CHN scores by education level confirmed known-groups validity. A receiver operating characteristics analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.81, indicating that the NVS-CHN was an accurate health literacy assessment tool. A score ≥ 4 out of 6 best identified participants with adequate health literacy.
conclusionsThe NVS-CHN has excellent psychometrical reliability and validity, which make it a suitable tool to evaluate health literacy in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.