ArticleBMC oral health2021
A new comprehensive oral health literacy scale: development and psychometric evaluation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. 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
- Measuring Menstrual Health Literacy: Development and validation of the Menstrual Health Literacy Scale.Journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Oral health status and associated factors among rural older adults in China using a 3D intraoral scanner: a population-based cross-sectional study in four provinces.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a fall health literacy scale for Chinese hospitals from the perspective of older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Promoting Health Literacy in the Workplace Among Civil Servants: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Assessment of women's needs and wishes regarding interprofessional guidance on oral health in pregnancy - a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Test of Oral Health Literacy in Adults (TOHLA): development and psychometric evaluation of a new scale.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- The validity and reliability of the Slovenian version of the health literacy questionnaire short-form (HLS-EU-Q16) among adults and older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The Association between Electronic Health Literacy and Oral Health Outcomes among Dental Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Designing a generic, adaptive protocol resource for the measurement of health impact in cash transfer pilot and feasibility studies and trials in high-income countries.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Developing a Health Literacy Scale for adults in Hong Kong: A modified e-Delphi study with healthcare consumers and providers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Oral Health Behaviours, Knowledge, and Literacy of Expectant Mothers: A Cross-Sectional Study among Maternity Ward Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Exploring the Relationships between Children's Oral Health and Parents' Oral Health Knowledge, Literacy, Behaviours and Adherence to Recommendations: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been widely accepted that oral health status is related to oral health literacy. The need to measure oral health literacy has led to the development of measurement instruments. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive instrument for adults and to examine its reliability and validity in China.
methodsA three-step design process was used. First, a literature review and expert panel discussion were used to draw up a 37-item pool covering oral health knowledge, belief, practice, skill, and functional oral health literacy. The Delphi method was used to delete and modify questions in the item pool. The draft instrument was evaluated by nine experts and the consensus among them was calculated using the content validity index. The scale was then used to conduct a psychometric study among 370 participants from community health centers in Beijing. Construct validity, discriminant validity and concurrent validity were examined. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and test-retest methods were used to assess reliability.
resultsThe final scale included 30 items across four dimensions. The item-level content validity index was 0.90. Exploratory factor analysis extracted four fixed factors, and the result of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's tests was 0.752, with the model explaining 35.21% of the total variance. The four dimensions were associated with oral health knowledge, perceptions of oral health issues, oral health practice and skills, and functional oral health literacy. The mean score of the lowest 27% was significantly lower than the highest 27% (P < 0.01), suggesting adequate discriminant validity. The associations between comprehensive oral health literacy scores and educational level, income and self-reported literacy level were significant (P < 0.001), showing adequate overall concurrent validity. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were acceptable, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.72 and a total test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.979.
conclusionsInitial testing of the comprehensive oral health literacy instrument suggested that it is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate individuals' oral health literacy, with four dimensions for evaluating knowledge, belief, skills, and functional oral health literacy.
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.