Modes of administration in validation study
How the validation study was administered (e.g., computer-based, face-to-face, paper and pencil, phone-based or mailed survey)
Categorical scoring (yes/no)
If the measure uses categories (e.g., low, medium or high) to categorize responses
Criterion validity: Concurrent
The extent to which the results from this tool correspond to results from other health literacy assessments done at the same time (i.e., how similar the results are)
Criterion validity: Predictive
The extent to which the results from this tool are associated with an independent defined outcome (i.e., how well the results can predict an outcome assessed at a later time)
Health literacy domains measured
Sub-categories of health literacy assessed by the measure (e.g., Prose: pronunciation, Prose: Comprehension, Document, Numeracy, Communication: Speaker, Communication: Listener, Information seeking: Interactive media navigation, Information seeking: Document or Application/function)
Measurement style
Whether the instrument items are designed in the style of TOFHLA (modified-Cloze test items in which a person selects the most logical word from a list of options to complete a sentence) or in the style of REALM (word pronunciation)
Objectively scored or self-reported assessment
Objectively scored measures assess demonstrated performance; self-reported measures capture subjective self-assessment
Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha
The extent to which there is internal consistency among the test items, expressed with an alpha
Reliability: Test-retest correlation
If applicable, percentage comparison between scores on measure from the initial to repeat administration
Sample size in validation study
Number of participants in validation study
Validation sample: Ethnicity
Percent Hispanic participants in validation study
Validation sample: Race
Percent white, Black and Asian participants in validation study. Note: in some instances, authors have not distinguished between Race and Ethnicity
