Background: Accurate measurement of health literacy is essential to improve accessibility and effectiveness of health care and prevention. One measure frequently applied in international research is the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL). While the Dutch SAHL (SAHL-D) has proven to be valid and reliable, its administration is time consuming and burdensome for participants. Our aim was to further validate, strengthen and shorten the SAHL-D using Rasch analysis. Methods: Available cross-sectional SAHL-D data was used from adult samples (N = 1231) to assess unidimensionality, local independence, item fit, person fit, item hierarchy, scale targeting, precision (person reliability and person separation), and presence of differential item functioning (DIF) depending on age, gender, education and study sample. Results: Thirteen items for a short form were selected based on item fit and DIF, and scale properties were compared between the two forms. The long form had several items with DIF for age, gender, educational level and study sample. Both forms showed lower measurement precision at higher health literacy levels. Conclusions: The findings support the validity and reliability of the SAHL-D for the long form and the short form, which can be used for a rapid assessment of health literacy in research and clinical practice.
Investigated if the SSQT allows for meaningful comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis from different countries and explored the dimensionality and invariance of the SSQT dimensions. Based on types of social support, the authors formulated a series of items to measure actual supportive interactions or exchanges of resources over 5 scales: (daily emotional support, problem-oriented emotional support, and social companionship; and daily instrumental support and problem-oriented instrumental support). 739 Ss (mean age 52.4 yrs) from France, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden completed the SSQT; mean disease duration was 2.3 yrs. Analyses yielded the intended scales, although the internal consistency of the daily instrumental support scale is questionable. The SSQT is a useful instrument for international comparative research. (PsycLIT Database Copyright 1995 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)
LINK
Background: In clinical practice, nurses’ attitudes regarding older patients are important in relation to quality of care. The Older People in Acute Care Survey (OPACS) is an instrument measuring hospital nurses attitudes regarding older patients and is validated in Australia and the USA. The OPACS is translated in Dutch language and content validity of this translation is previously assessed, presenting questionable results. Measurement instruments, however, cannot be “validated” based on content validity evidence alone. Judgmental evidence and statistical analysis should be combined to fully evaluate content domain definition and representation and guide further development. Objective: Assess structural validity and reliability to fully evaluate the OPACS for use in the Netherlands, complementing previous conducted content validity results. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Three general hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants: 201 registered nurses. Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the structural validity. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Results: OPACS Section A (measuring practice experiences) demonstrated to have acceptable structural validity- and good reliability outcomes after exclusion of two items (model fit: x² [df=537]=8475.40, p <0.001, CFI=0.96, TLI=0.96, RMSEA=0.21; Cronbach’s alpha=0.82). Section B (measuring general opinion) demonstrated to have inadequate structural validity outcomes (model fit: x² [df=1127]=9200.29, p<0.001, CFI=0.68, TLI=0.67, RMSEA=0.15). None of the items contributed significant to the factor and therefore no further analysis could be performed (range p(>|z|)= 0.551 -0 .788). Conclusion: Even though structural validity for section A was acceptable, content validity scores of a majority of items in this subscale were low, resulting in questionable use of this subscale for the Dutch context. The findings of this study, in relation to the earlier findings regarding content validity, justify the conclusion that use of the Dutch OPACS in clinical practice and research is not recommended. Given these findings, future research should pursue the development or (cross-cultural) validation of other instruments measuring hospital nurses attitudes towards older patients for the Dutch cultural context. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the influence of cultural differences on measurement instruments and the need for rigorous research before using a measurement instrument in a new culture or context.
