ArticleBMC medical education2026
Validation of health literacy competencies for healthcare professionals in Korea: a psychometric evaluation study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundAlthough health literacy is critical for determining the quality and outcomes of healthcare, research on the health literacy competencies (HLCs) of healthcare professionals tasked with identifying and educating vulnerable populations remains limited. This study aimed to validate and refine a previously developed HLCs instrument for use among healthcare professionals in Korea.
methodsThe original instrument was based on the conceptualization of HLCs, and included four domains: knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices. Following translating and back-translating, a three-round Delphi survey was conducted with 20 health literacy experts from diverse fields between October 2022 and September 2023. The experts rated each item on a four-point Likert scale to compute the content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR), and provided written feedback and recommendations, retaining 61 items for field testing. After expert panel review, a web-based survey was administered from October to December 2023 to physicians, registered nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians with ≥ 6 months of experience and routine direct patient contact. Of the 391 respondents, 359 were included in the final analysis. Validity and reliability were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach’s alpha, and test–retest reliability.
resultsMost participants were female (79.7%), and nurses represented 54.3% of the participants. The final instrument comprised 43 items across four domains: knowledge (11 items), attitudes (8 items), skills (12 items), and practices (12 items). CFA indicated a good model fit (χ² = 1534.94, df = 854, p < 0.001, root mean square error of approximation = 0.047, comparative fit index = 0.939, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.936, and standardized root mean residual = 0.070). The scale also showed good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93), strong test-retest reliability (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), good intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.72–0.90), F (1, 68) = 35.62, and p < 0.001.
conclusionsThe Korean version of the HLCs demonstrates strong validity and reliability for use among healthcare professionals in Korea. However, given the predominance of nurses in the validation sample, future research should consider including diverse groups of healthcare professionals, such as pharmacists, doctors, and allied health practitioners.
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.