Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Validation of a Short-Form, Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine

Arozullah, Ahsan M., Yarnold, Paul R., Bennett, Charles L., Soltysik, Robert C., Wolf, Michael S., Ferreira, Rosario M., Lee, Shoou-Yih D., Costello, Stacey, Shakir, Adil, Denwood, Caroline, Bryant, Fred B., Davis, Terry·2007·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although prior studies used the 66-item Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM instrument) for literacy assessment, researchers may require a shorter, validated instrument when designing interventions for clinical contexts. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a very brief literacy assessment tool, the REALM-Short Form (REALM-SF). PATIENTS: The model development, validation, and field testing validation samples included 1336, 164, and 50 patients, respectively. SETTING: General medicine and subspecialty clinics and medicine inpatient wards. DESIGN: For development and validation samples, indicator variables for REALM instrument items were evaluated as potential predictors of REALM instrument score by stepwise multiple regression analysis with subsequent bootstrap and confirmatory factor analysis of selected items. Pearson correlations compared REALM-SF and REALM instrument scores and kappa analyses compared grade level assignments. For the field testing validation sample, Pearson correlations compared Wide Range Achievement Test and REALM-SF scores. RESULTS: The REALM-SF included 7 items with stable model coefficients and 1 underlying linear factor. REALM-SF and REALM instrument scores were highly correlated in development (r = 0.95, P < 0.001) and validation (r = 0.94, P < 0.001) samples. There was excellent agreement between REALM-SF and REALM instrument grade-level assignments when dichotomized at the 6th grade (development: 97% agreement, K = 0.88, P < 0.001; validation: 88% agreement, K = 0.75, P < 0.001) and 8th grade levels (development: 94% agreement, K = 0.78, P < 0.001; validation: 84% agreement, K = 0.67, P < 0.001). REALM-SF and Wide Range Achievement Test scores were highly correlated (r = 0.83, P < 0.001) in field testing validation. CONCLUSIONS: The REALM-SF provides researchers a brief, validated instrument for assessing patient literacy in diverse research settings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e3180616c1b

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Arozullah, A. M., Yarnold, P. R., Bennett, C. L., Soltysik, R. C., Wolf, M. S., Ferreira, R. M., Lee, S.-Y. D., Costello, S., Shakir, A., Denwood, C., Bryant, F. B., & Davis, T.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2007-11
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
1026-1033
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077796847
Cited by
448
References
42
FWCI
5.71
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: Development and Validation of a Short-Form, Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3180616c1b
The paper
Arozullah, A. M., Yarnold, P. R., Bennett, C. L., Soltysik, R. C., Wolf, M. S., Ferreira, R. M., Lee, S.-Y. D., Costello, S., Shakir, A., Denwood, C., Bryant, F. B., & Davis, T. (2007). Development and Validation of a Short-Form, Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3180616c1b

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.