ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Development and psychometric validation of a first aid health literacy assessment questionnaire for older adults.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDespite the critical role of health literacy in emergency management, no specific questionnaire exists to measure first aid health literacy in the older population. To address this gap, the present study aimed to develop and psychometrically evaluate a first aid health literacy assessment questionnaire for older adults in 2024-2025.
methodsThis methodological study focused on questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation based on the framework proposed by Boateng et al. Initial questionnaire items were generated through an extensive literature review. Content validity and face validity were assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods. A multi-stage random sampling method was employed to recruit 400 eligible older adults who were covered by comprehensive health centers affiliated with Kashan University of Medical Sciences. All participants completed a background information questionnaire, the Persian version of the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT), and the Health Literacy Instrument for Adults-Short Form (HELIA-SF). Construct validity was evaluated using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and convergent validity. Internal consistency was assessed using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 (KR-21), test-retest reliability was measured via the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and stability was determined using the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change (MDC). Ceiling and floor effects were also examined. Data analysis was performed using JASP version 0.19.3.
resultsThe content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) for all items exceeded 0.8 and 0.9, respectively, and the modified kappa coefficient was greater than 0.89. Item impacts were all above 4.5. PCA extracted three components, collectively accounting for 58.2% of the variance in the total score. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between the first aid health literacy assessment questionnaire for older adults and the HELIA-SF (p < 0.001). Reliability indices were as follows: KR-21 = 0.704, ICC = 0.955, SEM = 0.707, and MDC = 2.331. No ceiling or floor effects were observed.
conclusionThe first aid health literacy assessment questionnaire for older adults demonstrates good validity and reliability. This questionnaire can effectively measure first aid health literacy levels in the older population and can design targeted educational interventions to improve their health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.