ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2024
Validation of an Arabic tool for assessing vaccination literacy: A factor and Rasch analysis.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social determinants of vaccine hesitancy among the Lebanese parents: A cross-sectional Study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Assessment of the impact of vaccine literacy on influenza vaccination practices among asthma patients in Jordan.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Assessment of the impact of vaccine literacy on influenza vaccination practices among diabetic patients in Iraq.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the BENEFITS-CCCSAT based on CTT and IRT: a cross-sectional design translation and validation study.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine literacy is a significant part of health literacy. Although several tools have been developed to assess vaccine literacy, such tools are lacking in Arabic. Validating an Arabic version of a tool that evaluates vaccine literacy is critically important, as it would aid in understanding the decision-making process regarding vaccinations among individuals in Arabic-speaking countries. Therefore, the current study aimed to validate an Arabic tool for assessing vaccine literacy in adult vaccination. An online questionnaire was distributed to people throughout Jordan by sharing the questionnaire link via various social media platforms. The reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the vaccination literacy assessment tool (HLVa-Ar) were evaluated using factor analysis and Rasch analyses. The two-factor model generated fit indices were in the acceptable range (χ2/df = 2.48, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05, GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.96). Cronbach's alpha for functional Vaccination literacy (VL) and interactive/critical VL were 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. The Rasch analysis indicated acceptable infit/outfit values and high item and person separation reliabilities for the two factors (0.852, 0.868, and 0.771, 0.818 respectively). Overall, the 420 participants displayed a good understanding of the general benefits and importance of vaccination. The HLVa-Ar was shown to be a valid and reliable tool that portrayed a wide range of vaccination literacy levels in the studied sample and provided valuable insights into participants' vaccination knowledge. The findings emphasize the need for developing targeted strategies to improve vaccination literacy and increase vaccination rates.
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.