Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g77L8vX10132; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <35054093@mailbox2.Hitchcock.ORG> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Walter.F.Wallace@Hitchcock.ORG (Walter F. Wallace) To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3757] RE: Interpreting TOFHLA scores X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: BlitzMail® version 2.6.1/blitzserv 3.9.5h1 Status: O Content-Length: 2456 Lines: 53 This is a very interesting area of concern. I'm a little suspicious of crosswalking any reading assessment according to grade level when working with adults. Might it not make more sense to validate the reading levels against the ABE/ESL standards associated with WIA? Has anyone looked at STOFHLA or REALM in relation to EFF standards? Walter Walter Wallace GME Office Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center walter.f.wallace@hitchcock.org --- You wrote: The STOFHLA was not validated relative to reading grade levels (probably purposefully to maintain a focus on functional health literacy). The TOFHLA manual reports Spearman correlation of .81 with REALM (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine)which was set up to give ranges of reading level scores. I believe that this is for raw scores rather than for the literacy levels (3 for TOFHLA and 4 for REALM)making practical comparisons a little tricky. In my experience working with both there is a good correspondence between individuals who score in the lowest category of either test (reading level <= 3rd grade for REALM and inadequate functional health literacy for the TOFHLA) but then there is less overlap in the 4-6th grade category of REALM and the marginal health literacy category of TOFHLA. I would love to hear from some of the developers of these instruments on this (regular contributers to the list). Ian -----Original Message----- From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Debbie Yoho Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:48 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3751] Interpreting TOFHLA scores In a JAMA article from July 24/31, 2002 (Vol 288, No 4) on the "Association of Health Literacy with Diabetes Outcomes", the short-form Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA) was the instrument used to assess literacy. The article states, "The mean abbreviated s-TOFHLA score was 21...38% of patients had inadequate health literacy (s-TOFHLA score 0-16), and 13% had marginal health literacy (s-TOFHLA score 17-22)". Does anyone know if these scores will translate to grade levels to get a clearer picture of what "inadeqate" and "marginal" health literacy mean in terms of reading abililty? Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health and Executive Director Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho@earthlink.net --- end of quote ---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:34 EST