Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511498›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Psychometric validation of the French version of two scales measuring general (HLS

Rajae Touzani, Alexandra Rouquette, Emilien Schultz, Cécile Allaire, Patrizia Carrieri, Julien Mancini, Jean-Benoit Hardouin

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Measuring health literacy: methods and tools for assessing general health literacy in adults].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  8. Measuring Navigational Health Literacy in Russia: Validation of the HLSInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Rajae TouzaniAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, ISSPAM, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Equipe Labellisée Ligue 2019, 232 Boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille, France. rajae.touzani@inserm.fr.
Alexandra RouquettePublic Health and Epidemiology Department, AP-HP, Bicêtre Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Sud, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Emilien SchultzAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, ISSPAM, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Equipe Labellisée Ligue 2019, 232 Boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille, France.
Cécile AllaireSanté publique France, Saint-Maurice, France.
Patrizia CarrieriAix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, ISSPAM, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Equipe Labellisée Ligue 2019, 232 Boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille, France.
Julien Mancini *Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, ISSPAM, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Equipe Labellisée Ligue 2019, 232 Boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille, France.
Jean-Benoit Hardouin *INSERM, Université de Nantes - Université de Tours, UMR U1246 SPHERE, Methods in patient- centered outcomes and health research, Nantes, France.

Funding

Ligue Contre le Cancer LIGUE2019Santé Publique France 21DPPA040-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine the psychometrics properties of the French version of two scales measuring general (HLS

methodsThe data on representative samples of the French adult population came from the Health Literacy Survey (N = 2 003), conducted in France in two waves (2020 and 2021), and from the third wave of SLAVACO study (N = 2 022), conducted in December 2021. A Rasch analysis was performed using a partial credit model with marginal maximum likelihood estimation adapted to polytomous data. Category probability curves were used to examine whether participants found it consistently difficult to distinguish between response options. Differential item functioning (DIF) was also examined for each item in the two scales as a function of age, gender, and economic status. A Person Separation Index (PSI) of 0.7 has conventionally been considered to be the minimum acceptable PSI level. Chi-square fit statistics, expressed as infit and outfit mean square statistics, were calculated for each item in the two scales. An acceptable fit corresponded to average values between 0.7 and 1.3. The dimensionality of the scales was assessed using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) on the residual correlation matrix to identify whether items are locally independent. Additionally, Smith's method was employed to detect potential multidimensionality.

resultsThe PSI values for both scales were greater than 0.90. No disordered categories were observed. No evidence of significant DIF was found when associated with gender and economic status. However, two items for both scales had a DIF which was dependent on age but did not have a significant impact on scale scores between younger and older people. Minor local dependence was noted on the HLS

conclusionsOur results, based on a rigorous statistical analysis, verified the psychometric parameters of the French version of the HLS

Indexed as

Health LiteracyPsychometricsAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultHealth literacyHealth literacy surveyHLS19-NAV scaleHLS19-Q12 scalePCMRasch modelSLAVACO

Identifiers

PMID39511498
PMCPMC11542190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.