ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2020
The Health Literacy Questionnaire: Initial Validity Testing in a Norwegian Sample.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Two-Year Follow-Up of a Communication Intervention on Medication Adherence and Health Literacy in Kidney Transplanted Recipients-A Randomised Controlled Study.Journal of renal care · 2025Trial
- Developing a validity testing plan for a patient-reported outcome measure in a new context using the argument-based approach to validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Medication adherence among Jordanian adults with chronic conditions: a combined analysis using regression and machine learning.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Patterns of health literacy among vulnerable unemployed citizens: a cross-sectional study in a Danish municipality.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Health literacy profiles in kidney transplanted patients: A cluster analysis.Journal of renal care · 2024Article
- Profiles of health literacy and digital health literacy in clusters of hospitalised patients: a single-centre, cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- The relationship between gender, psychosocial factors, pain, health literacy and health-related quality of life in parents of Norwegian adolescents one year into the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Health literacy strengths and challenges of people in New South Wales prisons: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).BMC public health · 2023Article
- Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
- A validation study of the Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire: A robust nine-dimension factor model.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Norwegian Version of the Electronic Health Literacy Scale (eHEALS) Among Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Cross-Sectional Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Cross-sectional survey of health literacy among health science students in Singapore.The journal of medicine accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) is a multidimensional generic questionnaire developed to capture a wide range of health literacy needs. There is a need for validation evidence for the Norwegian version of the HLQ (N-HLQ).
objectiveThe present study tested an initial version of the Norwegian HLQ by exploring its utility and construct validity among a group of nursing students.
methodsA pre-test survey was performed in participants (N = 18) who were asked to consider every item in the N-HLQ (44 items across nine scales). The N-HLQ was then administered to 368 respondents. Scale consistency was identified and extracted in a series of factor analyses (principal component analysis [PCA] with oblimin rotation) demanding a nine-dimension solution performed on randomly drawn 50% of the samples obtained by bootstrapping. Correlations between the nine factors obtained in the 13-factor PCA and the scale scores computed by the scale scoring syntaxes provided by the authors of the original HLQ were estimated. KEY
resultsThe pre-test survey did not result in the need to rephrase items. The internal consistency of the nine HLQ scales was high, ranging from 0.81 to 0.72. The best fit for reproduction of the scales from the original HLQ was found for these dimensions: "1. feeling understood and supported by health care providers," "2. having sufficient information to manage my health," and "3. actively managing my health." For the dimensions "7. navigating in the healthcare system" and "8. ability to find good health information," a rather high degree of overlap was found, as indicated by relatively low differences between mean highest correlations and mean next-highest correlations.
conclusionsDespite some possible overlap between dimensions 7 and 8, the N-HLQ appeared relatively robust. Thus, this study's results contribute to the evidence validation base for the N-HLQ in Norwegian populations. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2020;4(4):e190-e199.] PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study tested the Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. The questionnaire (44 items across nine scales) was completed by 368 nursing students. Despite some overlap between scale 7 ("navigating in the health care system") and scale 8 ("ability to find good health information"), the questionnaire appears to serve as a good measurement for health literacy in the Norwegian population.
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.