IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208091.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and measurement invariance across sex, age, and education level of the French short versions of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Rouquette
  • Théotime Nadot
  • Pierre Labitrie
  • Stephan Van den Broucke
  • Julien Mancini
  • Laurent Rigal
  • Virginie Ringa

Abstract

Background: Short versions of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU) questionnaire are increasingly used to measure and compare health literacy (HL) in populations worldwide. As no validated versions of these questionnaires have thus far appeared in French, this study aimed to study the psychometric properties of the French translation of the 16- and 6-item short versions (HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6), including their measurement invariance across sex, age, and education level. Methods: A consensual French version of the HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6 was developed by following the current recommendations for transcultural questionnaire adaptation. It was then completed by 317 patients recruited in waiting rooms of general practitioners in the Paris area (France). Structural validity was studied with the Rasch model for the HLS-EU-Q16 and confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) for the HLS-EU-Q6. Concurrent and convergent validity, respectively, were assessed by scores on the Functional Communicative Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL) questionnaire and the physicians’ evaluations of their patient’s HL. Results: The 16 items of the HLS-EU-Q16 were Rasch homogenous but meaningful differential item functioning (DIF) was found across sex, age, and/or education level for eight items. The CFA model fit for the HLS-EU-Q6 was poor. The overall scores for both HLS-EU short versions correlated poorly with the FCCHL scores. Similarly, HL levels defined using either short-version score did not agree with physicians’ HL assessments. Conclusion: The French version of the HLS-EU-Q16 has acceptable psychometric properties, despite meaningful DIF for age, sex and education level and a poor discriminative power among subjects with average to high HL level. We recommend its use to measure HL in populations with sufficient reading skills to discriminate between subjects with low to average HL. Also, sensitivity analyses should be performed to evaluate the potential measurement bias due to DIF. Our results did not demonstrate the validity of the HLS-EU-Q6.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Rouquette & Théotime Nadot & Pierre Labitrie & Stephan Van den Broucke & Julien Mancini & Laurent Rigal & Virginie Ringa, 2018. "Validity and measurement invariance across sex, age, and education level of the French short versions of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208091
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208091
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208091&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208091?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0208091. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.