The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Health Literacy Measurement: An Inventory and Descriptive Summary of 51 Instruments
Abstract
This article aimed to provide a descriptive review of the psychometric properties and conceptual dimensions of published health literacy measurement tools. PsycINFO and PubMed search from 1999 through 2013, review of the grey literature, and an environmental scan was conducted to identify health literacy measurement tools. For each tool, we evaluated the conceptual dimensions assessed, test parameters, and psychometric properties. Of the 51 tools identified, 26 measured general health literacy, and 15 were disease or content specific, and 10 aimed at specific populations. Most tools are performance based, require in-person administration, and are exclusively available in a pencil and paper testing mode. The tools assess 0 (proxy measure) to 9 of the 11 defined dimensions of health literacy. Reported administration times vary, from less than 1 to 60 minutes. Validation procedures for most of the tools are limited by inadequate power to ensure reliability across subgroups (i.e., race, age, ethnicity, and gender). The health literacy measurement tools currently available generally represent a narrow set of conceptual dimensions with limited modes of administration. Most of the tools lack information on key psychometric properties. Significant work is needed to establish important aspects of the construct, convergent, and predictive validity for many tools. As researchers develop new measures, inclusion of a full range of conceptual dimensions of health literacy, more representative sampling for testing, and additional modes of administration will allow a more refined and flexible approach to research in this field.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., Brand, H., & (HLS-EU) Consortium Health Literacy Project European (2012) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 · Cited by 6,213
Self-citationNutbeam, D. (2000) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/15.3.259 · Cited by 5,286
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 62 2010
Moghiman, M., Javadi, M. A., مقیمان, ا. ر., & حسینی, س. ب. (2010) · Cited by 3,832
Development and validation of the State Hope Scale.
Snyder, C. R. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.321 · Cited by 3,520
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
The evolving concept of health literacy
Nutbeam, D. (2008) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.050 · Cited by 2,944
Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign
Weiss, B. D. (2005) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.405 · Cited by 2,215
Parker, R. M., Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., & Nurss, J. R. (1995) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02640361 · Cited by 2,023
Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.
Chew, L. D., Bradley, K. A., & Boyko, E. J. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 1,913
Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.
Davis, T. C., Long, S. W., Jackson, R. H., Mayeaux, E. J., George, R. B., Murphy, P. W., & Crouch, M. A. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 1,597
Cited by
Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information.
Chen, X., Hay, J. L., Waters, E. A., Kiviniemi, M. T., Biddle, C., Schofield, E., Li, Y., Kaphingst, K., & Orom, H. (2018) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2018.1511658 · Cited by 548
Improving health literacy in community populations: a review of progress
Nutbeam, D., McGill, B., & Premkumar, P. (2018) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/dax015 · Cited by 459
Nakayama, K., Osaka, W., Togari, T., Ishikawa, H., Yonekura, Y., Sekido, A., & Matsumoto, M. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1835-x · Cited by 338
Jordan, S., & Hoebel, J. (2015) · Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz · doi:10.1007/s00103-015-2200-z · Cited by 268
The impact of a self-management educational program coordinated through WhatsApp on diabetes control
Al Omar, M., Hasan, S., Palaian, S., & Mahameed, S. (2020) · Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.18549/pharmpract.2020.2.1841 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Haun, J. N., Valerio, M. A., McCormack, L. A., Sørensen, K., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Health Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-10-14
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- sup2
- Pages
- 302-333
- ISSN
- 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
- 1087-0415
- OpenAlex
- W1965315711
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 48.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Health Literacy Measurement: An Inventory and Descriptive Summary of 51 Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10810730.2014.936571
- The paper
- Haun, J. N., Valerio, M. A., McCormack, L. A., Sørensen, K., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. (2014). Health Literacy Measurement: An Inventory and Descriptive Summary of 51 Instruments. Journal of Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.936571
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
