| Title |
Limitations of the S-TOFHLA in measuring poor numeracy: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5333-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashley J. Housten, Lisa M. Lowenstein, Diana S. Hoover, Viola B. Leal, Geetanjali R. Kamath, Robert J. Volk |
| Abstract |
Although the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) is widely used, misidentification of individuals with low health literacy (HL) in specific HL dimensions, like numeracy, is a concern. We examined the degree to which individuals scored as "adequate" HL on the S-TOFHLA would be considered as having low HL by two additional numerical measures. English-speaking adults aged 45-75 years were recruited from a large, urban academic medical center and a community foodbank in the United States. Participants completed the S-TOFHLA, the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), and the Graphical Literacy Measure (GL), an objective measure of a person's ability to interpret numeric information presented graphically. Established cut-points or a median split classified participants and having high and low numeracy. Participants (n = 187), on average were: aged 58 years; 63% female; 70% Black/African American; and 45% had a high school degree or less. Of those who scored "adequate" on the S-TOFHLA, 50% scored low on the SNS and 40% scored low on GL. Correlation between the S-TOFHLA and the SNS Total was moderate (r = 0.22, n = 186, p = 0.01), while correlation between the S-TOFHLA and the GL Total was large (r = 0.53, n = 187, p ≤ 0.01). Findings suggest that the S-TOFHLA may not capture an individuals' HL in the dimension of numeracy. Efforts are needed to develop more encompassing and practical strategies for identifying those with low HL for use in research and clinical practice. NCT02151032 (retrospectively registered: May 30, 2014). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2023.
All research outputs
#13,783,193
of 23,750,517 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,587
of 15,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,112
of 331,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#251
of 324 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,750,517 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 324 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.