Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the media Health Literacy Questionnaire: A validation study

Abstract

Background The media play an important role in health promotion and disease prevention, while at the same time, a variety of mixed health messages in the media are beginning to pose new challenges to them. However, there is a lack of media health literacy (MHL) assessment tools in China. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to translate the Media Health Literacy (MeHLit) questionnaire into Chinese and to assess its psychometric properties. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2022, and a methodological study of the translation and validation of the MeHLit questionnaire was conducted. Results As a result of an extensive translation and cultural adaptation process, the final MeHLit questionnaire was developed, which includes five dimensions and 21 items. Cronbach's α value of the questionnaire was 0.859, and Cronbach's α value of the dimensions ranged from 0.776 to 0.911, which is fairly good. As a result, the test–retest reliability coefficient and the split-half reliability coefficient of the questionnaire are both equal to 0.907. Its content validity index was 0.946, suggesting a reasonable level of content validity. Through exploratory factor analysis, a five-factor structure was identified based on the eigenvalues, total variance explained, and scree plot. As a result of the validation factor analysis, all recommended fit indicators were appropriate. Conclusion The Chinese version of the MeHLit questionnaire has been successfully introduced in China. It has shown good psychometric properties among the Chinese public and can be used as a tool to evaluate MHL in health screening.

A Systematic Review of Chinese Character Size Tests From 1930 to 2021

“…The average number of target characters in previous character size tests was 112.47 (SD = 59.96), with a range from 31 characters (Hung et al, 2008) to 210 characters (Wang & Tao, 1996). The average ratio of target characters to the pool was 0.031 (SD = 0.024), ranging from 0.004 (Hue, 2003) to 0.08 (Li, 1999). In addition, character size tests for native Chinese-speaking children (M = 116.06, SD = 63.80) had more target characters than those for CSL learners (M = 93.33, SD = 24.94).…”

“…This type of sampling method involves dividing the pool into multiple levels based on one or more criteria and then randomly selecting a suitable number of target items from each level. As shown in Table 3, five studies used character frequency as the sole criterion (Hue, 2003;Hung et al, 2008;Li, 2003;Tseng et al, 2016;Wen et al, 2015), while four studies selected the target characters based on both character frequency and other factors, such as difficulty (Li, 1999;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wu, 2012) and the orthographic features (e.g., structure, orthographic regularity) of characters (Zhang et al, 2021).…”

“…Tests adopting phonological methods asked the participants to read aloud or write down the pronunciations of target characters (e.g., Tseng et al, 2016;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wu, 2012). Tests that employed mixed methods measured the participants' Chinese character size by their knowledge of pronunciations and meanings of target characters (Ai, 1949;Hue, 2003;Hung et al, 2008;Li, 1999;Wen et al, 2015;Zhang, 1931;Zhang et al, 2021), or their knowledge of pronunciations, meanings and orthography of target characters (Li, 2003). In addition, ten studies used only one testing method, but Wang and Tao (1996) used different methods for children of different ages, such as phonological methods for first and second graders, and semantic methods for third to fifth graders.…”

“…In addition, ten studies used only one testing method, but Wang and Tao (1996) used different methods for children of different ages, such as phonological methods for first and second graders, and semantic methods for third to fifth graders. As for the perspective of subjective versus objective measurement, subjective tasks required participants to produce the pronunciations and meanings of target characters using a paper-and-pencil method (Hue, 2003;Hung et al, 2008;Li, 1999;Li, 2003;Tseng et al, 2016;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wen et al, 2015) or interview form (Li, 1999;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wen et al, 2015;Zhang, 1931). In contrast, the objective tasks asked the participants to select the correct answer from a set of items (Ai, 1949;Li, 1999).…”

“…As for the perspective of subjective versus objective measurement, subjective tasks required participants to produce the pronunciations and meanings of target characters using a paper-and-pencil method (Hue, 2003;Hung et al, 2008;Li, 1999;Li, 2003;Tseng et al, 2016;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wen et al, 2015) or interview form (Li, 1999;Wang & Tao, 1996;Wen et al, 2015;Zhang, 1931). In contrast, the objective tasks asked the participants to select the correct answer from a set of items (Ai, 1949;Li, 1999). Although the majority of studies used either subjective or objective measures, the tests designed by Li (1999) included both subjective and objective measures.…”