IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i5p881-d212677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of an Environmental Health Literacy Assessment Screening Tool for Domestic Well Owners: The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS)

Author

Listed:
  • Veronica L. Irvin

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Diana Rohlman

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Amelia Vaughan

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Rebecca Amantia

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Claire Berlin

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Molly L. Kile

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

Abstract

In the U.S., privately owned wells are not subject to any regulatory testing requirements. Well owners must have sufficient environmental health literacy (EHL) to understand and interpret information that contain complex terms and labels to manage their water quality. The objective of this paper is to assess the performance and validity of a new EHL screening tool. The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS) is based on the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and contains six questions on comprehension, calculations and application of information. Content validity was assessed from expert review. Criterion-related and construct validity were evaluated using an online, convenience sample of adults ( n = 869). Percent of correct responses for items ranged from 53% to 96% for NVS and from 41% to 97% for WELLS. Completion time, mean scores, distributions, and internal consistency were equivalent between both scales. Higher scores suggest higher EHL. The scales were moderately correlated (ρ = 0.47, p < 0.001). Kappa agreement was 74%. Bland-Altman plots depicted little mean difference between the scales. Education and income level were positively associated with EHL. WELLS showed criterion-validity with NVS and construct validity with education and income. In practice or research, WELLS could quickly screen individuals for low EHL.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronica L. Irvin & Diana Rohlman & Amelia Vaughan & Rebecca Amantia & Claire Berlin & Molly L. Kile, 2019. "Development and Validation of an Environmental Health Literacy Assessment Screening Tool for Domestic Well Owners: The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:881-:d:212677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/881/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/881/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303482_9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Vanderslice, J., 2011. "Drinking water infrastructure and environmental disparities: Evidence and methodological considerations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(SUPPL. 1), pages 109-114.
    3. Stillo, F. & Gibson, J.M., 2017. "Exposure to contaminated drinking water and health disparities in North Carolina," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(1), pages 180-185.
    4. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew R. Binder & Katlyn May & John Murphy & Anna Gross & Elise Carlsten, 2022. "Environmental Health Literacy as Knowing, Feeling, and Believing: Analyzing Linkages between Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status and Willingness to Engage in Protective Behaviors against Health ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Kathleen M. Gray & Victoria Triana & Marti Lindsey & Benjamin Richmond & Anna Goodman Hoover & Chris Wiesen, 2021. "Knowledge and Beliefs Associated with Environmental Health Literacy: A Case Study Focused on Toxic Metals Contamination of Well Water," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Jung-Min Kwak & Ju-Hee Kim, 2022. "Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the Environmental Health Literacy Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Diana Rohlman & Molly L. Kile & Veronica L. Irvin, 2022. "Developing a Short Assessment of Environmental Health Literacy (SA-EHL)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristina Marcillo & Leigh-Anne Krometis & Justin Krometis, 2021. "Approximating Community Water System Service Areas to Explore the Demographics of SDWA Compliance in Virginia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    3. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    4. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    5. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    6. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    7. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    8. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    9. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    10. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    11. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    13. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    14. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    15. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.
    17. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    18. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    19. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    20. Joshua Gubler & Nathan Kalmoe & David Wood, 2015. "Them’s Fightin’ Words: The Effects of Violent Rhetoric on Ethical Decision Making in Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 705-716, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:881-:d:212677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.