Back

Evaluating the Scale Functioning of The Health System Literacy Scale in Canada (HSL-CAN): A Partial Credit Model

Vo, A. T.; Cao, Y.; Yang, L.; Urquhart, R.; Yi, Y.; Wang, P. P.

2026-01-24 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.01.23.26344690
Show abstract

BackgroundAdapted from the Navigational Health Literacy scale (HLS19 - NAV-HL), the 20-item Health System Literacy (HSL-CAN) was developed to measure health system literacy among Chinese Canadians. However, little is known about the functioning of its response categories. MethodThis study aimed to evaluate the proper functioning of the response categories using data from 681 adult Chinese Canadians aged 30 years or older who have resided in Canada for at least six months. Data were collected through a cross-sectional online survey. The partial credit model was utilized to evaluate the dimensionality of the scale, item- and category-level fit statistics, and the ordering of category thresholds. ResultsFindings supported the unidimensional construct of the scale. Most items met the item theory response (IRT) model requirements, demonstrating acceptable item fit statistics, except for three items with outfit-t statistics outside the acceptable range. Adjacent response category thresholds were increased monotonically, and threshold distances were within the recommended upper range, although relatively narrow distances were observed for several items. Person separation reliability and person separation index indicated good internal consistency and adequate discrimination among individuals with different level of health system literacy. ConclusionThis study provides evidence supporting the unidimensional construct and a proper functioning of the 5-point Likert response scale, suggesting that the HSL-CAN is a psychometrically appropriate instrument for evaluating health system literacy among Chinese Canadians. Future studies are needed to examine the scales applications across more diverse populations in Canada.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 13%
22.6%
2
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 0.7%
12.5%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
6.0%
4
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 3%
5.3%
5
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 4%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 21%
5.1%
7
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 0.3%
5.1%
8
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
based on 16 papers
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
Healthcare
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
3.2%
10
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 2%
2.0%
11
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 4%
1.8%
12
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
1.8%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 10%
1.5%
14
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 11%
1.5%
15
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 2%
1.5%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 16%
1.5%
17
Journal of Public Health
based on 23 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
18
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 9%
0.9%
19
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 5%
0.9%
20
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 23%
0.8%
21
Sensors
based on 18 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Psychology
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
23
JMIR Research Protocols
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
based on 10 papers
Top 1.0%
0.8%