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 g782D2X13232; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <B9774BA6.21A%mwillia@emory.edu> 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: "Mark V. Williams, MD" <mwillia@emory.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3758] RE: Interpreting TOFHLA scores X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 3017 Lines: 75 Not that I know of though Joanne Nurss or Dave Baker would be better able to answer this question. Mark On 8/7/02 5:08 PM, "Walter F. Wallace" <Walter.F.Wallace@Hitchcock.ORG> wrote: > 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 --- -- Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP Associate Professor of Medicine Director, Hospital Medicine Unit Emory University School of Medicine 69 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive Atlanta, GA 30303 President, National Association of Inpatient Physician 404-616-5288 Fax: 404-717-0747
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:34 EST