ArticlePloS one2024
Validity testing of the Korean version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) and its application in people with chronic diseases.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidimensional Quality Assessment of Guizhou Teas Integrating Thermogravimetric, Amino Acid, and Trace Element Analyses.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Translation and cultural adaptation of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) in Morocco.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
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
Health literacy plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining the health of patients with chronic illnesses. Therefore, adequate assessments and the application of interventions based on people's health literacy strengths, needs, and preferences are required to improve health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometrical properties of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) in Koreans with chronic diseases. Data were collected from 278 patients (57.04±15.22 years) diagnosed with chronic disease, including kidney disease, hypertension, and diabetes, who visited the outpatient clinic of a university hospital from June to December 2020. For validity assessment, construct, convergent, and discriminant validities were evaluated, along with the HLQ reliability using Cronbach's α. One-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate mean differences in the HLQ scale scores based on patients' characteristics. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that all items were loaded on their respective factors. The model fit of a full nine-factor CFA model showed satisfactory or better fit compared with nine one-factor CFA model; χ2WLSMV (866) = 576.596 (p < .001), comparative normed fit index of 1.000 (reference: >0.950), Tucker-Lewis index of 0.981 (reference: >0.950), root mean square error of approximation of 0.066 (reference: <0.080), and standardized root mean square residual of 0.055 (reference: <0.080). All scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥.757). Sociodemographic characteristic variables with significant score differences in HLQ scores were reported across nine scales, with the level of education and income showing significant score differences in 8 and 6 scales, respectively. This study revealed that the Korean version of the HLQ has many strong measurement properties among patients with chronic diseases. The validation indicated the HLQ as a robust tool that is used cross-culturally and is recommended for use in the Korean 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.