Oral Health Literacy Assessment: development of an oral health literacy instrument for Spanish speakers. (5th December 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Jessica; Stucky, Brian; Rozier, Gary; Lee, Shoou‐Yih; Zeldin, Leslie P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of public health dentistry. Volume 73:Number 1(2013)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2012-12-05
• Subjects: Dental public health -- Periodicals; 362.1976
• DOI: 10.1111/jphd.12000
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-4006

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jphd12000-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objective</title> <p>To develop an oral health literacy instrument for Spanish‐speaking adults, evaluate its psychometric properties, and determine its comparability to an English version.</p> </sec> <sec id="jphd12000-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>The Oral Health Literacy Assessment in Spanish (OHLA‐S) and English (OHLA‐E) are designed with a word recognition section and a comprehension section using the multiple‐choice format developed by an expert panel. Validation of OHLA‐S and OHLA‐E involved comparing the instrument with other health literacy instruments in a sample of 201 Spanish‐speaking and 204 English‐speaking subjects. Comparability between Spanish and English versions was assessed by testing for differential item functioning (DIF) using item response theory.</p> </sec> <sec id="jphd12000-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>We considered three OHLA‐S scoring systems. Based on validity and reliability comparisons, 24 items were retained in the OHLA‐S instrument. OHLA‐S was correlated with another health literacy instrument, Spanish Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (<italic>P</italic> < 0.05). Significant correlations were also found between OHLA‐S and years of schooling, oral health knowledge, overall health, and an understanding of written health‐care materials (<italic>P</italic> < 0.05). OHLA‐S displayed satisfactory reliability with a Cronbach Alpha of 0.70‐0.80. DIF results suggested that OHLA‐S and OHLA‐E scores were not comparable at a given level of oral health literacy.</p> </sec> <sec id="jphd12000-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>OHLA‐S has acceptable reliability and validity. OHLA‐S and OHLA‐E are two different measurement tools and should not be used to compare oral health literacy between English‐ and Spanish‐speaking populations.</p> </sec> </abstract>