ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Structural Validation and Measurement Invariance Testing of the Chinese Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale Among Undergraduates: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of eHealth literacy in adult populations.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Association between information overload, asthenopia, and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with lung cancer: A computer-simulated network analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Parental perspectives and willingness towards digital paediatric research: a cross-sectional survey in two Chinese cities.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Social media use and health empowerment among Chinese adults: the critical role of eHealth literacy and community interventions.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Cancer cognition in basic education teachers: interactions with cancer fear, e-health literacy, and self-efficacy.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Data report on older adults from China's five national physical fitness monitoring: evidence-based psychological characteristics of ageing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- The mediating role of self-efficacy in the association between social support and eHealth literacy among kidney transplant recipients.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Age-Specific Associations Between eHealth Literacy and Sleep Quality Among Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was introduced in China in 2013 as one of the most important electronic health literacy measurement instruments. After a decade of development in China, it has received widespread attention, although its theoretical underpinnings have been challenged, thus demanding more robust research evidence of factorial validity and multigroup measurement properties.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the Chinese version of the eHEALS in terms of its measurement properties.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in a university setting in China. Item statistics were checked for response distributions and floor and ceiling effects. Internal consistency reliability was confirmed with Cronbach α, split-half reliability, Cronbach α if an item was deleted, and item-total correlation. A total of 5 representative eHEALS factor structures were examined and contrasted using confirmatory factor analysis. The study used the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and the average of the I-CVI scores of all items on the scale to assess the content validity of the dominance model. Furthermore, the validated dominance model was subsequently used to evaluate the relevance and representation of elements in the instrument and to assess measurement invariance across genders.
resultsA total of 972 respondents were identified, with a Cronbach α of .92, split-half reliability of 0.88, and item-total score correlation coefficients ranging from 0.715 to 0.781. Cronbach α if an item was deleted showed that all items should be retained. Acceptable content validity was supported by I-CVIs ≥0.80. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the 3-factor model was acceptable. The measurement model met all relevant fit indices: average variance extracted from 0.663 to 0.680, composite reliability from 0.810 to 0.857, chi-square divided by the df of 4.768, root mean square error of approximation of 0.062, standardized root mean squared residual of 0.020, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.987, and Tucker-Lewis index of 0.979. In addition, the scale demonstrated error variance invariance (Δnormed fit index=-0.016, Δincremental fit index=-0.012, ΔTucker-Lewis index=0.005, Δcomparative fit index=-0.012, Δrelative fit index=0.005, and Δroot mean square error of approximation=0.005).
conclusionsA 3-factor model of the Chinese version of the eHEALS fits best, and our findings provide evidence for the strict measurement invariance of the instrument regarding gender.
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.