The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Current health literacy screening instruments for health care settings are either too long for routine use or available only in English. Our objective was to develop a quick and accurate screening test for limited literacy available in English and Spanish. METHODS: We administered candidate items for the new instrument and also the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) to English-speaking and Spanish-speaking primary care patients. We measured internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and assessed criterion validity by measuring correlations with TOFHLA scores. Using TOFLHA scores <75 to define limited literacy, we plotted receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves and calculated likelihood ratios for cutoff scores on the new instrument. RESULTS: The final instrument, the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), is a nutrition label that is accompanied by 6 questions and requires 3 minutes for administration. It is reliable (Cronbach alpha >0.76 in English and 0.69 in Spanish) and correlates with the TOFHLA. Area under the ROC curve is 0.88 for English and 0.72 for Spanish versions. Patients with more than 4 correct responses are unlikely to have low literacy, whereas fewer than 4 correct answers indicate the possibility of limited literacy. CONCLUSION: NVS is suitable for use as a quick screening test for limited literacy in primary health care 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.
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: 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
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90014-3 · Cited by 1,408
Cited by
Health literacy in Europe: Comparative results of the european health literacy survey (HLS-EU)
Sørensen, K., Pelikan, J. M., Röthlin, F., Ganahl, K., Slonska, Z., Doyle, G., Fullam, J., Kondilis, B., Agrafiotis, D., Uiters, E., et al. (2015) · The European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv043 · Cited by 2,651
Understanding and Responding to Health Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health
Nutbeam, D., & Lloyd, J. E. (2021) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102529 · Cited by 1,178
van der Vaart, R., & Drossaert, C. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6709 · Cited by 687
Diviani, N., van den Putte, B., Giani, S., & van Weert, J. C. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4018 · Cited by 638
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Weiss, B. D.
- Venue
- The Annals of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- Annals of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2005-11-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 514-522
- ISSN
- 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-1717
- OpenAlex
- W2099246599
- Cited by
- 2,215
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 40.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.405
- The paper
- Weiss, B. D. (2005). Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.405
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.