Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the eHealth Literacy Scale in Korea

Sun Ju Chang; Eunjin Yang; Hyunju Ryu; Hee Jung Kim; Ju Young Yoon

doi:10.7475/kjan.2018.30.5.504

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.30(5) > 1106002

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Chang, Yang, Ryu, Kim, and Yoon: Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the eHealth Literacy Scale in Korea

Original Article

Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2018; 30(5): 504-515.

Published online: 25 October 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2018.30.5.504

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the eHealth Literacy Scale in Korea

Sun Ju Chang¹

, Eunjin Yang²

, Hyunju Ryu³

, Hee Jung Kim³

, Ju Young Yoon⁴

¹Assistant Professor, College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

²Doctoral Student, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

³Master Student, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

⁴Associate Professor, College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author: Yoon, Ju Young. College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8817, Fax: +82-2-766-1852, yoon26@snu.ac.kr

Received 23 May 2018 Revised 13 August 2018 Accepted 6 September 2018

Korean Society of Adult Nursing

(open-access):

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the eHealth Literacy Scale into Korean (KeHEALS) and evaluate its reliability and validity.

Methods

The cross-cultural adaptation of the KeHEALS was conducted according to the World Health Organization's guideline. To evaluate the reliability and validity, the data of 397 participants (210 young adults and 187 older adults) were collected from 2017 November to 2018 February. An online survey was conducted with young adults, while a face-to-face survey was conducted with older adults in two senior welfare centers. The reliability of the KeHEALS was examined using the internal consistency and test-retest reliability tests. Regarding the validity, the content validity index was calculated for content validity, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and the hypothesized test were conducted for assessing construct validity of the KeHEALS.

Results

The Cronbach's α coefficient was .89 and the intraclass correlation coefficient for the 2-week test-retest reliability was .80. The content validity index of the KeHEALS was 1.0. From the exploratory factor analysis, eight items were retained in one factor, which accounted for 58.1% of the total variance. This factor structure was confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis. The total score of the KeHEALS was significantly correlated with the attitudes toward internet health information.

Conclusion

The findings of this study provide evidence for the adequate psychometric properties of the KeHEALS. The KeHEALS will be useful to evaluate the eHealth literacy among Koreans.

Keywords: Health literacy, Validation studies, Internet, Surveys

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Personal and Internet-related Characteristics (N=397)

CAM=complementary alternative medicine; KeHEALS=Korean version of the eHealth Literacy Scale; ^†Multiple responses.

Table 2

The Results of the Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

B=unstandardized coefficient, SE=standard error, β=standardized coefficient, AVE=average variance extrated; CR=construct reliability; GFI=goodness of fit index; NFI=normed fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; TLI=Turker-Lewis index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

Table 3

Results of the Item Analysis, Internal Consistency, and the Test-retest Reliability of the KeHEALS

The possible range of each item was from 1 to 5 whereas that of total score was from 8 to 40; The total score was calculated by summing 8 items ranged from item 3 to item 10; ICC=intraclass correlation; CI=confidence interval.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported by both the 2017 SNU invitation program for distinguished scholar of Seoul National University and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (Grant No. NRF2017R1C1B5017768).

Notes

^{CONFLICTS OF INTEREST} The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix 1

Korean version of the eHealth Literacy Scale

References

1. Berkman ND, Davis TC, MaCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Commun. 2010; 15:Suppl 2. 9–19. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2010.499985.

2. DeMarco J, Nystrom M. The important of health literacy in patient education. J Consum Health Internet. 2010; 14(3):294–301. DOI: 10.1080/15398285.2010.502021.

3. Kim S, Oh J, Lee Y. Health literacy: an evolutionary concept analysis. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2013; 19(4):558–570. DOI: 10.5977/jkasne.2013.19.4.558.

4. Cutrona SL, Mazor KM, Vieux SN, Luger TM, Volkman JE, Finney Rutten LJ. Health information-seeking on behalf of others: characteristics of “surrogate seekers”. J Cancer Educ. 2015; 30(1):12–19. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0701-3.

5. Cho H, Jung JT, Lee Y, Kim Y, Jang SH, Jung SM, et al. Research on the establishment of mid-and-long-term strategies for providing consumer health information [Internet]. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2016. cited 2018 March 3. Available from: http://www.prism.go.kr/homepage/theme/retrieveThemeDetail.do?leftMenuLevel=110&cond_brm_super_id=NB000120061201100060495&research_id=1351000-201600369.

6. Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C. Health information on the internet. Gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician. 2014; 60(5):407–408.

7. Park DJ, Kwon MS, Choi J. The influence of health information orientation, attitudes of internet health information, and e-Health literacy on personal health behaviors. J Public Relat Res. 2013; 17(3):379–413. DOI: 10.15814/jpr.2013.17.3.379.

8. Stellefson M, Hanik B, Chaney B, Chaney D, Tennant B, Chavarria EA. eHealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4):e102. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1703.

9. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006; 8(4):e27. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27.

10. Paramio Pérez G, Almagro BJ, Hernando Gómez Á, Aguaded Gómez JI. Validation of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) in Spanish university students. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2015; 89(3):329–338. DOI: 10.4321/S1135-57272015000300010.

11. De Caro W, Corvo E, Marucci AR, Mitello L, Lancia L, Sansoni J. eHealth Literacy Scale: an nursing analysis and Italian validation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016; 225:949.

12. Koo M, Norman C, Chang HM. Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) in school age children. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2012; 15:29–36.

13. van der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument: measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(1):e27. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6709.

14. Kim JO, Park JK. The reliability of health information on the internet and the medical advertising's attitudes on the internet according to e-Health literacy level. J Humanit Soc Sci 21. 2017; 8(4):299–314. DOI: 10.22143/HSS21.8.4.17.

15. Lee BK, Byoun WJ, Lim JL. The influence of individual's e-Health literacy on doctor-patient communication. J Cybercommunication. 2010; 27(3):89–125.

16. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Korea Internet & Security Agency. 2016 Survey on the internet usage [Internet]. Naju: Korea Internet & Security Agency;2017. cited 2018 March 7. Available from: https://isis.kisa.or.kr/board/index.jsp?pageId=060100&bbsId=7&itemId=817&pageIndex=1.

17. Park JH, Kwon YH. Standardization of Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-K) for use in the elderly part II diagnostic validity. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 1989; 28(3):508–513.

18. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2012.

19. Kline RB. Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press;2005.

20. Park MS, Kang KJ, Jang SJ, Lee JY, Chang SJ. Evaluating test-retest reliability in patient-reported outcome measures for older people: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018; 79:58–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.003.

21. Zulman DK, Kirch M, Zheng K, An LC. Trust in the internet as a health resource among older adults: analysis of data from a nationally representative survey. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(1):e19. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1552.

22. Paige SR, Krieger JL, Stellefson ML. The influence of eHealth literacy on perceived trust in online health communication channels and sources. J Health Commun. 2017; 22(1):53–65. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1250846.

23. Jung WS, Kang HG, Suk MH, Kim EH. The use of the internet health information for the elderly. J Korean Public Health Nurs. 2011; 25(1):48–60.

24. Chang SJ, Im EO. A path analysis of internet health information seeking behaviors among older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2014; 35(2):137–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.11.005.

25. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization;2017. cited 2017 November 3. Available from: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/.

26. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed (Pearson new international edition). Essex: Pearson Education Limited;2014.

27. Bae BL. Structural equation modeling with AMOS 17.0. Seoul: Cheongram Books;2009.

28. Neter E, Brainin E. eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14(1):e19. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1619.

29. Richtering SS, Morris R, Soh SE, Barker A, Bampi F, Neubeck L, et al. Examination of an eHealth Literacy Scale and a health literacy scale in a population with moderate to high cardiovascular risk: Rasch analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(4):e0175372. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175372.

30. Peterson RA. A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loading in exploratory factor analysis. Mark Lett. 2000; 11(3):261–275.

31. Kang H. A guide on the use of factor analysis in the assessment of construct validity. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013; 43(5):587–594. DOI: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.5.587.

32. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(14):1–74.

33. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.

34. Kong KA. Statistical methods: reliability assessment and method comparison. Ewha Med J. 2017; 40(1):9–16. DOI: 10.12771/emj.2017.40.1.9.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs

Sun Ju Chang
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6967-1564

Eunjin Yang
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8669-954X

Hyunju Ryu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5400-1354

Hee Jung Kim
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9149-3175

Ju Young Yoon
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3944-0663

Similar articles