Skip to main content

Critical Health Competence Test

Characteristics

Domains assessed: Prose: Comprehension, Numeracy, Information seeking: Document
Specific context: General
Validation sample population age: Adolescents: 10 to 17 years
Modes of administration in validation study: Paper and pencil

Psychometrics

Number of items: 72
Sample size in validation study: 300
Administration Time (minutes): 90 minutes
Language of validated version: German

Main article reference

Steckelberg, A., Hulfenhaus, C., Kasper, J., Rost, J., & Muhlhauser, I. (2009, March). How to measure critical health competences: development and validation of the Critical Health Competence Test (CHC Test). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 14(1):11-22.

Link to article

Corresponding author

user
Anke Steckelberg
map-pin
Unit of Health Sciences and Education, University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, Hamburg, Germany
Contact the corresponding author for this tool

Description

General measure of health literacy and evidence-based health across 4 scenarios and 4 subareas of competence

Year Measure first Published: 2009

About This Measure

Categorical scoring: No

About the Validation of this Measure

Country where validated: Germany
Content validity: The development and pre-testing of this questionnaire covered pre-defined phases collecting empirical data. Phase 1: A first version of the questionnaire was constructed and pre-tested by collecting qualitative data from 8 students. In a face-to-face setting; the students were observed and interviewed with a focus on their understanding of the questions and the response formats. Phase 2: After revising the test according to the results of the first phase, a quantitative field test was performed. This first field test aimed at getting information about the fit of the Rasch model to this kind of competency data and the appropriateness of the facet design of the test. Additionally, the response format, distractors, item difficulties and discriminations were analyzed, and the test instrument has been revised accordingly. Phase 3: A second field test was performed in order to control the improvement of the test instrument and the fit of the Rasch model. The development process was completed by the time the Rasch model was the best fitting model.
Reliability notes: Rasch: mean person parameter, with Scenario 1: 395, Scenario 2: 497, Scenario 3: 635, and Scenario 4: 473
lightbulb

We would love your feedback on this measure. Please send your comments or questions to the Tool Shed.

Send Feedback
Jump back to top