Skip to main content

Short Assessment of Health Literacy for Spanish-Speaking Adults

Characteristics

Domains assessed: Prose: Pronunciation, Prose: Comprehension
Specific context: General
Validation sample population age: Older Adults: 65+ years, Adults: 18 to 64 years
Modes of administration in validation study: Paper and pencil, Face-to-face

Psychometrics

Number of items: 50
Sample size in validation study: 403
Administration Time (minutes): 4 minutes
Language of validated version: Spanish

Main article reference

Lee, S.Y., Bender, D.E., Ruiz, R.E., & Cho, Y.I.(2006). Development of an easy-to-use Spanish Health Literacy test. Health Serv Res, 41(4 Pt 1):1392-412.

Link to article

Corresponding author

user
Shoou-Yih Lee
map-pin
Department of Health Administration, VCU College of Health Professions, 900 E. Leigh Street, Richmond, VA, United States of America
Contact the corresponding author for this tool

Description

Spanish general medical word recognition and matching test

Year Measure first Published: 2006

About This Measure

Categorical scoring: No
Scoring categories: Possible range: 0-50, with ≤37 = inadequate HL

About the Validation of this Measure

Country where validated: United States of America
Content validity: The instrument was developed by an expert panel through a Delphi process. The panel consisted of 5 experts who were fluent in both English and Spanish and had extensive experience working with Spanish speakers in educational, medical, and public health settings. The Delphi process involved 2 steps. The first was translation of the 66 REALM medical terms into Spanish. The translation took into account both the dictionary definition and the commonality of usage in daily conversations. The second step was selection of the key and distractor for each REALM medical term according to 3 criteria: (1) the key and distractor should be no more complicated or difficult than the medical term; (2) the relation of the key to the medical term should be a subset, an example, a larger class, a synonym, or a function; and (3) the distractor should be an incorrect but plausible choice in terms of its association with the medical term and it should be comparable in length and complexity to the key. Discrepancies that arose during the Delphi process were discussed and resolved among panel members during 3 half-day meetings held between December 2002 and March 2003. The Delphi process produced both the English and Spanish drafts of the new instrument.
Reliability notes: IRT: aΔ=2.80 to 0.68, and b□= -2.98 to 0.75
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