Characteristics
Domains assessed:
Application/function, Comprehension, Numeracy
Specific context:
Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Nutrition
Validation sample population age:
Adults: 18 to 64 years
Modes of administration in validation study
:
Computer-based, Paper and pencil
Time Cut-off:
0 minutes
Assessment:
Objective
Psychometrics
Number of items:
42
Sample size in validation study:
429
Administration Time (minutes):
25 minutes
Language of validated version:
English
Main article reference
Gibbs, H. D., Ellerbeck, E. F., Gajewski, B., Zhang, C., & Sullivan, D. K. (2017). The Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Nutrition Literacy in Adults with Chronic Disease. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 50(3), 247-257.e1.
Link to articleCorresponding author
Heather Gibbs
Description
A tool to measure Nutrition Literacy in adult primary care population with nutrition-related chronic disease.
Year Measure first Published: 2017
About This Measure
Categorical scoring:
Yes
Scoring categories:
Scores ≤28 correct may be interpreted as “likelihood of poor nutrition literacy”; Scores of 29–38 correct may be interpreted as “possibility of poor nutrition literacy”; Scores ≥39 may be interpreted as “possibility of good nutrition literacy.”
Reliability: Test-retest correlation:
0.88
Modern Approach for Tool Development:
Yes
About the Validation of this Measure
Country where validated:
United States of America
Content validity:
The development of the tool included an expert panel in Nutrition education and 1 Psychometrician who revised the NLit looking improve the clarity of the format and content for the target patient population.
Criterion validity:
NLit is demonstrated by the strong relationship found between nutrition literacy scores and diet quality scores (HEI-2010). The mean HEI-2010 scores of this sample fell between the 75th and 90th percentiles of scores in the 2003–2004 NHANES nationally representative sample used to validate HEI-20103, indicating better reported diet quality than would be predicted for a general sample of US adults (Gibbs et al., 2017).
Reliability notes:
CFA=0.97
