Measuring Electronic Health Literacy: Development, Validation, and Test of Measurement Invariance of a Revised German Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale.
eHeals
eHealth
factor analysis
health information
health literacy
internet
measurement invariance
validation
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 02 2022
02 02 2022
Historique:
received:
26
02
2021
accepted:
19
11
2021
revised:
24
07
2021
entrez:
2
2
2022
pubmed:
3
2
2022
medline:
31
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Wide Web has become an essential source of health information. Nevertheless, the amount and quality of information provided may lead to information overload. Therefore, people need certain skills to search for, identify, and evaluate information from the internet. In the context of health information, these competencies are summarized as the construct of eHealth literacy. Previous research has highlighted the relevance of eHealth literacy in terms of health-related outcomes. However, the existing instrument assessing eHealth literacy in the German language reveals methodological limitations regarding test development and validation. The development and validation of a revised scale for this important construct is highly relevant. The objective of this study was the development and validation of a revised German eHealth literacy scale. In particular, this study aimed to focus on high methodological and psychometric standards to provide a valid and reliable instrument for measuring eHealth literacy in the German language. Two internationally validated instruments were merged to cover a wide scope of the construct of eHealth literacy and create a revised eHealth literacy scale. Translation into the German language followed scientific guidelines and recommendations to ensure content validity. Data from German-speaking people (n=470) were collected in a convenience sample from October to November 2020. Validation was performed by factor analyses. Further, correlations were performed to examine convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Additionally, analyses of measurement invariance of gender, age, and educational level were conducted. Analyses revealed a 2-factorial model of eHealth literacy. By item-reduction, the 2 factors information seeking and information appraisal were measured with 8 items reaching acceptable-to-good model fits (comparative fit index [CFI]: 0.942, Tucker Lewis index [TLI]: 0.915, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]: 0.127, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]: 0.055). Convergent validity was comprehensively confirmed by significant correlations of information seeking and information appraisal with health literacy, internet confidence, and internet anxiety. Discriminant and criterion validity were examined by correlation analyses with various scales and could partly be confirmed. Scalar level of measurement invariance for gender (CFI: 0.932, TLI: 0.923, RMSEA: 0.122, and SRMR: 0.068) and educational level (CFI: 0.937, TLI: 0.934, RMSEA: 0.112, and SRMR: 0.063) were confirmed. Measurement invariance of age was rejected. Following scientific guidelines for translation and test validation, we developed a revised German eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS). Our factor analyses confirmed an acceptable-to-good model fit. Construct validation in terms of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity could mainly be confirmed. Our findings provide evidence for measurement invariance of the instrument regarding gender and educational level. The newly revised GR-eHEALS questionnaire represents a valid instrument to measure the important health-related construct eHealth literacy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The World Wide Web has become an essential source of health information. Nevertheless, the amount and quality of information provided may lead to information overload. Therefore, people need certain skills to search for, identify, and evaluate information from the internet. In the context of health information, these competencies are summarized as the construct of eHealth literacy. Previous research has highlighted the relevance of eHealth literacy in terms of health-related outcomes. However, the existing instrument assessing eHealth literacy in the German language reveals methodological limitations regarding test development and validation. The development and validation of a revised scale for this important construct is highly relevant.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was the development and validation of a revised German eHealth literacy scale. In particular, this study aimed to focus on high methodological and psychometric standards to provide a valid and reliable instrument for measuring eHealth literacy in the German language.
METHODS
Two internationally validated instruments were merged to cover a wide scope of the construct of eHealth literacy and create a revised eHealth literacy scale. Translation into the German language followed scientific guidelines and recommendations to ensure content validity. Data from German-speaking people (n=470) were collected in a convenience sample from October to November 2020. Validation was performed by factor analyses. Further, correlations were performed to examine convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Additionally, analyses of measurement invariance of gender, age, and educational level were conducted.
RESULTS
Analyses revealed a 2-factorial model of eHealth literacy. By item-reduction, the 2 factors information seeking and information appraisal were measured with 8 items reaching acceptable-to-good model fits (comparative fit index [CFI]: 0.942, Tucker Lewis index [TLI]: 0.915, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]: 0.127, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]: 0.055). Convergent validity was comprehensively confirmed by significant correlations of information seeking and information appraisal with health literacy, internet confidence, and internet anxiety. Discriminant and criterion validity were examined by correlation analyses with various scales and could partly be confirmed. Scalar level of measurement invariance for gender (CFI: 0.932, TLI: 0.923, RMSEA: 0.122, and SRMR: 0.068) and educational level (CFI: 0.937, TLI: 0.934, RMSEA: 0.112, and SRMR: 0.063) were confirmed. Measurement invariance of age was rejected.
CONCLUSIONS
Following scientific guidelines for translation and test validation, we developed a revised German eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS). Our factor analyses confirmed an acceptable-to-good model fit. Construct validation in terms of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity could mainly be confirmed. Our findings provide evidence for measurement invariance of the instrument regarding gender and educational level. The newly revised GR-eHEALS questionnaire represents a valid instrument to measure the important health-related construct eHealth literacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35107437
pii: v24i2e28252
doi: 10.2196/28252
pmc: PMC8851340
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e28252Informations de copyright
©Matthias Marsall, Gerrit Engelmann, Eva-Maria Skoda, Martin Teufel, Alexander Bäuerle. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.02.2022.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 22;21(10):e15720
pubmed: 31642811
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jul 09;20(7):e10434
pubmed: 29986848
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2015 May-Jun;89(3):329-38
pubmed: 26388346
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 01;13(4):e102
pubmed: 22155629
Health Educ Res. 2006 Feb;21(1):78-86
pubmed: 15994845
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;225:949
pubmed: 27332425
Health Promot. 1986 May;1(1):113-27
pubmed: 10318625
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 13;22(3):e14492
pubmed: 32167476
Am J Mens Health. 2015 Sep;9(5):370-9
pubmed: 25122719
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 27;19(2):e53
pubmed: 28242590
Health Promot Int. 2017 Feb 1;32(1):7-8
pubmed: 28180270
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 12;20(2):e47
pubmed: 29434017
JAMA. 2011 Apr 27;305(16):1695-701
pubmed: 21521851
Front Public Health. 2019 Mar 12;7:46
pubmed: 30931291
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 17;17(3):e70
pubmed: 25783036
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 31;20(10):e281
pubmed: 30381283
Front Psychol. 2014 Apr 29;5:370
pubmed: 24808880
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2011 Dec;20(4):235-49
pubmed: 22020761
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9
pubmed: 16867972
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 12;20(2):e36
pubmed: 29434011
Health Promot Int. 2019 Aug 1;34(4):770-778
pubmed: 29800141
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020 Feb;19(2):155-164
pubmed: 31516036
Eur J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;27(5):327-328
pubmed: 32332201
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726
pubmed: 11301544
J Nurs Manag. 2021 May;29(4):805-812
pubmed: 33269492
Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(1):1-19
pubmed: 25710808
Comput Inform Nurs. 2014 Sep;32(9):458-63
pubmed: 25105588
Dev Rev. 2016 Sep;41:71-90
pubmed: 27942093
JMIR Hum Factors. 2018 Feb 19;5(1):e6
pubmed: 29459356
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 26;19(10):e362
pubmed: 29074471
Interact J Med Res. 2016 May 25;5(2):e16
pubmed: 27226146
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 04;19(10):e331
pubmed: 28978496
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jul 23;15(7):
pubmed: 30041420
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):875
pubmed: 32687807
Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):97-109
pubmed: 21244188
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 9;22(10):e19684
pubmed: 33006940
Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281-302
pubmed: 13245896
Health Informatics J. 2008 Sep;14(3):175-81
pubmed: 18775824
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 09;13(4):e86
pubmed: 22071338
Health Commun. 2018 Dec;33(12):1410-1424
pubmed: 28872905
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 24;22(6):e18155
pubmed: 32579126
Health Educ Res. 2011 Apr;26(2):323-35
pubmed: 21422003
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41
pubmed: 26172965
J Pers. 2020 Apr;88(2):185-200
pubmed: 30929263
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 20;20(4):e138
pubmed: 29678800
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1-13
pubmed: 23209454
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 24;19(1):e27
pubmed: 28119275
Health Informatics J. 2021 Jan-Mar;27(1):1460458220975466
pubmed: 33446030
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 27;12(4):e0175372
pubmed: 28448497
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020 Mar 09;13:241-247
pubmed: 32210568
J Pak Med Assoc. 2020 May;70(Suppl 3)(5):S162-S165
pubmed: 32515403
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 13;14(6):e153
pubmed: 23149453
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jan;103(1):15-32
pubmed: 31451363
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27
pubmed: 17213046
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 18;18(7):e192
pubmed: 27432783
J Gen Intern Med. 1995 Oct;10(10):537-41
pubmed: 8576769
Health Educ Res. 2001 Dec;16(6):671-92
pubmed: 11780707
JAMA. 2002 Jul 24-31;288(4):475-82
pubmed: 12132978
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 29;23(3):e25042
pubmed: 33626015