Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35409762›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the Environmental Health Literacy Scale.

Jung-Min Kwak, Ju-Hee Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Environmental Health Literacy of Brazilian Indigenous People.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jung-Min KwakCollege of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0932-922X
Ju-Hee KimCollege of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6586-7244

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The environmental health literacy (EHL) scale evaluates media-specific and general EHL levels in three domains: knowledge, attitude, and behavior. This study aimed to adapt the EHL scale developed by Lichtveld et al. into the Korean language (K-EHL scale) and to verify its reliability and validity. Survey data was collected from 492 adults (19-65 years) residing in Korea. The study process included translation procedures, content validity verification, pre-testing, the actual survey, and statistical analysis for validation and selection of the final items. The scale-level content validity index was 0.92, and one item was removed. Multiple exploratory factor analyses condensed the K-EHL into 2 factors and 38 items. The "Environmental health knowledge and attitude" factor (14 items) measures information, feelings, and thoughts about environmental health. The "Environmental health behavior" factor (24 items) comprises behaviors responding to environmental health. A construct validity (criterion and discriminant validity) was verified using confirmatory factor analysis for goodness of fit (CFI = 0.901, TLI = 0.863, GFI = 0.923, NFI = 0.862, and RMSEA = 0.08). Internal consistency reliability test results showed a Cronbach's α of 0.81 for the total items. This study is the first to introduce the EHL in Korea, and it also presents a validated evaluation tool. The K-EHL is expected to elucidate EHL levels in Korea. In the future, the EHL scale can be enhanced using this tool.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyLanguageEnvironmental HealthPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsRepublic of KoreaSurveys and Questionnairesenvironmental health literacyfactor analysisKoreareliabilityscalevalidity

Identifiers

PMID35409762
PMCPMC8998780

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.