Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias

Joan M. Griffin, Melissa R. Partin, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Joseph P. Grill, Somnath (Som) Saha, Annamay Snyder, Sean Nugent, Alisha Baines Simon, Ian Gralnek, Dawn Provenzale, Michelle van Ryn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This paper compares estimates of poor health literacy using two widely used assessment tools and assesses the effect of non-response on these estimates. Study Design and Setting: A total of 4,868 veterans receiving care at four VA medical facilities between 2004 and 2005 were stratified by age and facility and randomly selected for recruitment. Interviewers collected demographic information and conducted assessments of health literacy (both REALM and S-TOFHLA) from 1,796 participants. Prevalence estimates for each assessment were computed. Non-respondents received a brief proxy questionnaire with demographic and self-report literacy questions to assess non-response bias. Available administrative data for non-participants were also used to assess non-response bias. Results: Among the 1,796 patients assessed using the S-TOFHLA, 8% had inadequate and 7% had marginal skills. For the REALM, 4% were categorized with 6th grade skills and 17% with 7-8th grade skills. Adjusting for non-response bias increased the S-TOFHLA prevalence estimates for inadequate and marginal skills to 9.3% and 11.8%, respectively, and the REALM estimates for∈6th and 7-8th grade skills to 5.4% and 33.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Estimates of poor health literacy varied by the assessment used, especially after adjusting for non-response bias. Researchers and clinicians should consider the possible limitations of each assessment when considering the most suitable tool for their purposes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)675-681
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume25
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2010

Fingerprint

Health Literacy
Demography
Proxy
Veterans
Self Report
Research Personnel
Interviews
Literacy

Keywords

  • health literacy
  • measurement
  • non-response bias
  • prevalence
  • REALM
  • S-TOFHLA
  • veterans

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias. / Griffin, Joan M.; Partin, Melissa R.; Noorbaloochi, Siamak; Grill, Joseph P.; Saha, Somnath (Som); Snyder, Annamay; Nugent, Sean; Baines Simon, Alisha; Gralnek, Ian; Provenzale, Dawn; van Ryn, Michelle.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 7, 07.2010, p. 675-681.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Griffin, JM, Partin, MR, Noorbaloochi, S, Grill, JP, Saha, SS, Snyder, A, Nugent, S, Baines Simon, A, Gralnek, I, Provenzale, D & van Ryn, M 2010, 'Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias', Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 675-681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1304-2
Griffin, Joan M. ; Partin, Melissa R. ; Noorbaloochi, Siamak ; Grill, Joseph P. ; Saha, Somnath (Som) ; Snyder, Annamay ; Nugent, Sean ; Baines Simon, Alisha ; Gralnek, Ian ; Provenzale, Dawn ; van Ryn, Michelle. / Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 25, No. 7. pp. 675-681.
@article{2ac92d5a6d2045ad910d52d4e1f47d71,
title = "Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias",
abstract = "Objectives: This paper compares estimates of poor health literacy using two widely used assessment tools and assesses the effect of non-response on these estimates. Study Design and Setting: A total of 4,868 veterans receiving care at four VA medical facilities between 2004 and 2005 were stratified by age and facility and randomly selected for recruitment. Interviewers collected demographic information and conducted assessments of health literacy (both REALM and S-TOFHLA) from 1,796 participants. Prevalence estimates for each assessment were computed. Non-respondents received a brief proxy questionnaire with demographic and self-report literacy questions to assess non-response bias. Available administrative data for non-participants were also used to assess non-response bias. Results: Among the 1,796 patients assessed using the S-TOFHLA, 8{\%} had inadequate and 7{\%} had marginal skills. For the REALM, 4{\%} were categorized with 6th grade skills and 17{\%} with 7-8th grade skills. Adjusting for non-response bias increased the S-TOFHLA prevalence estimates for inadequate and marginal skills to 9.3{\%} and 11.8{\%}, respectively, and the REALM estimates for∈6th and 7-8th grade skills to 5.4{\%} and 33.8{\%}, respectively. Conclusions: Estimates of poor health literacy varied by the assessment used, especially after adjusting for non-response bias. Researchers and clinicians should consider the possible limitations of each assessment when considering the most suitable tool for their purposes.",
keywords = "health literacy, measurement, non-response bias, prevalence, REALM, S-TOFHLA, veterans",
author = "Griffin, {Joan M.} and Partin, {Melissa R.} and Siamak Noorbaloochi and Grill, {Joseph P.} and Saha, {Somnath (Som)} and Annamay Snyder and Sean Nugent and {Baines Simon}, Alisha and Ian Gralnek and Dawn Provenzale and {van Ryn}, Michelle",
year = "2010",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-010-1304-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "675--681",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in estimates of limited ealth Literacy by Assessment Instruments and Non-Response Bias

AU - Griffin, Joan M.

AU - Partin, Melissa R.

AU - Noorbaloochi, Siamak

AU - Grill, Joseph P.

AU - Saha, Somnath (Som)

AU - Snyder, Annamay

AU - Nugent, Sean

AU - Baines Simon, Alisha

AU - Gralnek, Ian

AU - Provenzale, Dawn

AU - van Ryn, Michelle

PY - 2010/7

Y1 - 2010/7

N2 - Objectives: This paper compares estimates of poor health literacy using two widely used assessment tools and assesses the effect of non-response on these estimates. Study Design and Setting: A total of 4,868 veterans receiving care at four VA medical facilities between 2004 and 2005 were stratified by age and facility and randomly selected for recruitment. Interviewers collected demographic information and conducted assessments of health literacy (both REALM and S-TOFHLA) from 1,796 participants. Prevalence estimates for each assessment were computed. Non-respondents received a brief proxy questionnaire with demographic and self-report literacy questions to assess non-response bias. Available administrative data for non-participants were also used to assess non-response bias. Results: Among the 1,796 patients assessed using the S-TOFHLA, 8% had inadequate and 7% had marginal skills. For the REALM, 4% were categorized with 6th grade skills and 17% with 7-8th grade skills. Adjusting for non-response bias increased the S-TOFHLA prevalence estimates for inadequate and marginal skills to 9.3% and 11.8%, respectively, and the REALM estimates for∈6th and 7-8th grade skills to 5.4% and 33.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Estimates of poor health literacy varied by the assessment used, especially after adjusting for non-response bias. Researchers and clinicians should consider the possible limitations of each assessment when considering the most suitable tool for their purposes.

AB - Objectives: This paper compares estimates of poor health literacy using two widely used assessment tools and assesses the effect of non-response on these estimates. Study Design and Setting: A total of 4,868 veterans receiving care at four VA medical facilities between 2004 and 2005 were stratified by age and facility and randomly selected for recruitment. Interviewers collected demographic information and conducted assessments of health literacy (both REALM and S-TOFHLA) from 1,796 participants. Prevalence estimates for each assessment were computed. Non-respondents received a brief proxy questionnaire with demographic and self-report literacy questions to assess non-response bias. Available administrative data for non-participants were also used to assess non-response bias. Results: Among the 1,796 patients assessed using the S-TOFHLA, 8% had inadequate and 7% had marginal skills. For the REALM, 4% were categorized with 6th grade skills and 17% with 7-8th grade skills. Adjusting for non-response bias increased the S-TOFHLA prevalence estimates for inadequate and marginal skills to 9.3% and 11.8%, respectively, and the REALM estimates for∈6th and 7-8th grade skills to 5.4% and 33.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Estimates of poor health literacy varied by the assessment used, especially after adjusting for non-response bias. Researchers and clinicians should consider the possible limitations of each assessment when considering the most suitable tool for their purposes.

KW - health literacy

KW - measurement

KW - non-response bias

KW - prevalence

KW - REALM

KW - S-TOFHLA

KW - veterans

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954382986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954382986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-010-1304-2

DO - 10.1007/s11606-010-1304-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 20224964

AN - SCOPUS:77954382986

VL - 25

SP - 675

EP - 681

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 7

ER -