Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37990370›Full record

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.

Chen Long, Lin Zheng, Runhua Liu, Zhongxian Duan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chen Long *Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-2597
Lin Zheng *Department of Social Welfare, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6647-4773
Runhua LiuHealth Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0545-2367
Zhongxian DuanSchool of Public Management, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7079-5038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health LiteracyTelemedicineCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsStudentsSurveys and Questionnairescross-sectional surveydigital health literacyeHEALSeHealth literacyfactor structurehealth literacymeasurementmeasurement invarianceundergraduates

Identifiers

PMID37990370
PMCPMC10753429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.