ISSN 1672-9234 CN 11-5289/R
主管:中国科学技术协会 主办:中华护理学会
出版:中华护理杂志社
收录:中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊
   中国期刊全文数据库
   中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库
   中文科技期刊数据库

中华护理教育 ›› 2024, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (1): 89-95.doi: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2024.01.015

• 健康教育 • 上一篇    下一篇

数字健康素养量表的汉化、修订及信效度检验

赵冰悦(),徐钦,王晓娟,黄珑,张钰红,胡蓉芳()   

  1. 350000 福州市 福建医科大学护理学院
  • 收稿日期:2023-03-15 出版日期:2024-01-15 发布日期:2024-01-15
  • 通讯作者: 胡蓉芳,博士,教授,E-mail:hurongfang1234@sina.com
  • 作者简介:赵冰悦,女,本科(硕士在读),E-mail:1320225022@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    2021年度福建省中青年教师教育科研项目(JAS21071)

The sinicization of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument and the test of its reliability and validity

ZHAO Bingyue(),XU Qin,WANG Xiaojuan,HUANG Long,ZHANG Yuhong,HU Rongfang()   

  • Received:2023-03-15 Online:2024-01-15 Published:2024-01-15
  • Contact: Rongfang HU

摘要:

目的 汉化、修订数字健康素养量表(Digital Health Literacy Instrument, DHLI), 并检验其信度和效度。方法 根据Brislin翻译模型, 将数字健康素养量表进行直译和回译, 并对其进行文化调适;2022年7月—8月采用便利抽样法, 借助在线问卷平台对458名调查对象进行调查, 2周后从中随机抽取25名调查对象进行重测, 检验中文版DHLI的信效度。 结果 中文版DHLI共28个条目(21个自我评估主观条目和7个客观条目), 其中21个主观条目经探索性因子分析提取出4个公因子, 累计方差贡献率为71.630%。验证性因子分析结果显示, 中文版DHLI的结果模型拟合较好(χ2/df=2.850, CFI=0.924, IFI=0.924, TLI=0.904, RMSEA=0.088, RMR=0.046)。量表的条目内容效度指数为0.833~1.00, 全体一致内容效度指数为0.964, 平均内容效度指数为0.994;Cronbach’s α为0.929, 重测信度系数为0.828。 结论 中文版DHLI量表具有良好的信效度, 可作为实施数字健康服务的有效评估工具。

关键词: 数字健康素养, 电子健康素养, 信度, 效度, 量表

Abstract:

Objective To translate and revise the Digital Health Literacy Instrument(DHLI) into Chinese and test its reliability and validity. Methods Literal translation, back translation and cultural adjustment of the DHLI were carried out based on the Brislin translation model. From July 2022 to August 2022, the convenience sampling method was used to investigate 458 respondents with the online survey platform, 25 respondents of them were randomly selected to retest after two weeks, and the data was collected to analyze the reliability and validity. Results The Chinese version of the DHLI had 28 items (21 self-assessment items and 7 performance-based items), and the exploratory factor analysis(EFA) extracted four factors with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 71.630% for self-assessinent items. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fitness of the constructed model(χ2/df=2.850, CFI=0.924, IFI=0.924, TLI=0.904, RMSEA=0.088, RMR=0.046). The I-CVI was 0.833~1.00; the S-CVI/UA was 0.964; the S-CVI/Ave was 0.994; the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the total scale was 0.929; the test-retest reliability was 0.828. Conclusion The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of DHLI are satisfactory, and it can serve as a valid assessment instrument for the implementation of digital health services.

Key words: Digital health literacy, eHealth literacy, Reliability, Validity, Instrument