Development and Pyschometric properties of a tool to assess Media Health Literacy

Domains assessed: Media Literacy

Specific context: General, Digital health

Validation sample population age: Adults: 18 to 64 years

Modes of administration in validation study: Computer-based

Number of items: 30

Sample size in validation study: 213

Language of validated version: Persian

Country where validated: Iran

Content validity: The content validity of MeHLit was tested qualitatively and quantitatively. In the qualitative content validity assessment , 10 key experts including: 2 health education specialist, 3 communication specialists, 3 media specialists, and 2 psychologist from a variety of Iranian public universities were asked to comment on the items in terms of wording, grammar, location in the sclae, choice of vocabulary, appropriateness and scoring. In the quantitative content validity assessment, the content validity ratio (CVR) and the content validity index (CVI) were calculated. The content validity was assessed by 10 experts. The experts determined the content validity ratio of each item with the criteria of "necessary", "not neccesary but useful" and "not neccessary". CVR was calculated through the following formula. CVR=NeN/2 n/2 where nE stands for the number of experts who have selected the option “essential” and N is the total number of experts. According to Lawshe’s table [31], the CVR higher than 0.62 for 10 individuals indicate the necessity of the item at a statistically significant level (P = 0.05). The Content Validity Index (CVI) was evaluated by the same 10 experts using a 4-point Likert scale that rated questionnaire items based on ‘simplicity’, ‘relevance’ and ‘clarity’ based on Waltz & Bausell’s content validity index [31]. CVI was calculated according to the following formula: CVI=Number of raters chosing points3 and4/Total number of raters A CVI score of 0.78 and above is considered acceptable [30].

Reliability (Cronbach Alpha): 0.91