Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019;24(10):737-748.
doi: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1666940. Epub 2019 Oct 4.

Transactional eHealth Literacy: Developing and Testing a Multi-Dimensional Instrument

Affiliations

Transactional eHealth Literacy: Developing and Testing a Multi-Dimensional Instrument

Samantha R Paige et al. J Health Commun. 2019.

Abstract

Theoretically informed measures of eHealth literacy that consider the social affordances of eHealth are limited. This study describes the psychometric testing of a multi-dimensional instrument to measure functional, communicative, critical, and translational eHealth literacies, as informed by the Transactional Model of eHealth Literacy (TMeHL). A 3-phase rating scale construction process was conducted to engage eHealth experts and end-users. In Phase 1, Experts (N = 5) and end-users (N = 25) identified operational behaviors to measure each eHealth literacy dimension. End-users (N = 10) participated in think-aloud interviews to provide feedback on items reviewed and approved by experts. A field test was conducted with a random sample of patients recruited from a university-based research registry (N = 283). Factor analyses and Rasch procedures examined the internal structure of the scores produced by each scale. Pearson's r correlations provided evidence for external validity of scores. The instrument measures four reliable (ω = .92-.96) and correlated (r= .44-.64) factors: functional (4 items), communicative (5 items), critical (5 items), and translational (4 items). Researchers and providers can use this new instrument as a theory-driven instrument to measure four eHealth literacies that are fundamental to the social affordances of the eHealth experience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest exists among authors.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow-chart of the instrument development process
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
An item characteristic curve for each TeHLI scale Note. Category 0 = strongly disagree; Category 4 = strongly agree

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2015, June 25). Principles of Community Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/index.html
    1. Anderson M, & Perrin A (2017, May 17). Technology use among seniors. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/technology-use-among-seniors/
    1. Barnlund D (1970). Communication: The Context of Change. Harper & Row.
    1. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, & Young SL (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boote J, Baird W, & Beecroft C (2010). Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy, 95(1), 10–23. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types