SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 1

Evaluation of the Turkish Validity and Reliability of the Occupational Health Literacy Scale

İş Sağlığı Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Hasan Evcimen(MUŞ ALPARSLAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4352-101X
Fatoş Uncu(FIRAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8077-4652
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-03-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the occupational health literacy scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to adapt the Occupational Health Literacy Scale into Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: This methodological cross-sectional study was conducted with the participation of 631 people working in different sectors between January and July 2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The Turkish version of the occupational health literacy scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Occupational health · Health literacy · Validity

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to adapt the Occupational Health Literacy Scale into Turkish. Method: This methodological cross-sectional study was conducted with the participation of 631 people working in different sectors between January and July 2024. Personal information form and Occupational health literacy scale were used to collect data. The validity of the scale was evaluated with content validity, construct validity and convergent-divergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed in multiple groups between genders to determine measurement invariance. For reliability, cronbach alpha, corrected item-total correlation and composite reliability were analysed. Results: The content validity index was found to be above 0.78 for all items. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the original two-factor structure. Goodness-of-fit index values were found to be in the acceptable and excellent range. Cross-gender measurement invariance results were satisfactory. The cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.87. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the occupational health literacy scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı İş Sağlığı Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğini Türkçeye uyarlamaktır. Metod: Metodolojik olarak kesitsel nitelikte olan bu çalışma Ocak-Temmuz 2024 tarihleri arasında farklı sektörlerde çalışan 631 kişinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplamak için kişisel bilgi formu ve İş sağlığı okuryazarlığı ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerliliği kapsam geçerliliği, yapı geçerliliği ve yakınsak-ıraksak geçerlilik ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçüm değişmezliğini belirlemek için cinsiyetler arasında çoklu gruplarda doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Güvenilirlik için cronbach alpha, düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonu ve bileşik güvenilirlik analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Kapsam geçerlilik indeksi tüm maddelerde 0.78'in üzerinde olduğu bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi orijinal iki faktörlü yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Uyum iyiliği indeks değerleri kabul edilebilir ve mükemmel aralıkta bulunmuştur. Cinsiyetler arası ölçüm değişmezliği sonuçları tatmin edicidir. Ölçeğin cronbach alpha katsayısı 0.87 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: İş sağlığı okuryazarlığı ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olarak bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Evcimen, H., Uncu, F. (2025). Evaluation of the Turkish Validity and Reliability of the Occupational Health Literacy Scale. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.1570032

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Ehmann AT, Ög E, Rieger MA, Siegel A. Work-related health literacy: A scoping review to clarify the concept. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):9945. doi:10.3390/ijerph18199945
  2. Fiedler S, Pfaff H, Soellner R, Pförtner T-K. Exploring the association between health literacy and psychological well-being among industry managers in Germany. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(8):743-753. doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001324
  3. Stassen G, Grieben C, Hottenrott N, Rudolf K, Froböse I, Schaller A. Associations between health-related skills and young adults’ work ability within a structural health literacy model. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(4):1072-1083. doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa099
  4. Zheng M, Jin H, Shi N, et al. The relationship between health literacy and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:1-10. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-1031-7
  5. Parker R, Ratzan SC. Health literacy: A second decade of distinction for Americans. J Health Commun. 2010;15(S2):20-33. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.501094
  6. Rauscher KJ, Myers DJ. Occupational health literacy and work-related injury among US adolescents. Int J Inj Control Saf Promot. 2014;21(1):81-89.
  7. Bitzer EM, Sørensen K. Gesundheitskompetenz–health literacy. Das Gesundheitswesen. 2018;80(08/09):754-766. doi:10.1055/a-0664-0395
  8. Azizi N, Karimy M, Abedini R, Armoon B, Montazeri A. Development and validation of the health literacy scale for workers. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019;10(1):30. doi:10.15171/ijoem.2019.1498
  9. Shannon HA, Parker AW. Evaluation of a health literacy instrument designed for the mining industry. HLRP Health Lit Res Pract. 2020;4(2):e84-e93. doi:10.3928/24748307-20200316-01
  10. Suthakorn W, Songkham W, Tantranont K, Srisuphan W, Sakarinkhul P, Dhatsuwan J. Scale development and validation to measure occupational health literacy among Thai informal workers. Safety and Health at Work. 2020;11(4):526-532. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2020.06.003
  11. Uskun E, Güblü M, Evcil FY, et al. İş Sağlığı Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği: Metodolojik Bir Çalışma. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2022;42(3):191-203. doi:10.5336/medsci.2022-88390
  12. Ezirmik E. Çalışanlar İçin Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği Tıpta Uzmanlık Tezi. İstanbul University; 2020.
  13. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health. 2018;6:149. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  14. Carpenter S. Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Commun Methods Meas. 2018;12(1):25-44. doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  15. Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manag. 2024;41:745-783. doi:10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
  16. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Vol 6. Pearson; 2013.
  17. Schaeffer D, Berens EM, Vogt D. Health Literacy in the German Population. Dtsch Arztebl Int. Jan 27 2017;114(4):53-60. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2017.0053
  18. Friedrich J, Münch A-K, Thiel A, Voelter-Mahlknecht S, Sudeck G. Occupational Health Literacy Scale (OHLS): Development and validation of a domain-specific measuring instrument. Health Promot Int. 2023;38(1):daac182. doi:10.1093/heapro/daac182
  19. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
  20. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health. 2007;30(4):459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  21. Oppong FB, Agbedra SY. Assessing univariate and multivariate normality. A guide for non-statisticians. Mathematical Theory and Modeling. 2016;6(2):26-33.
  22. Hair JF, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. Cengage; 2019.
  23. Clark JC. Evaluating model fit for longitudinal measurement invariance with ordered categorical indicators. PhD dissertation, Brigham Young University; 2020. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/evaluating-model-fit-longitudinal-measurement/docview/2506304317/se-2?accountid=86207
  24. Rutkowski L, Svetina D. Measurement invariance in international surveys: Categorical indicators and fit measure performance. Applied Measurement in Education. 2017;30(1):39-51. doi:10.1080/08957347.2016.1243540
  25. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015/01/01 2015;43(1):115-135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  26. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39-50. doi:10.2307/3151312
  27. Çapık C. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmalarinda doğrulayici faktör analizinin kullanimi. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2014;17(3):196-205.
  28. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications; 2021.
  29. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2013;33(1):210-223. doi:10.5336/medsci.2011-26747
  30. Yaşlıoğlu MM. Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017;46:74-85.
  31. Ehmann AT, Ög E, Rieger MA, Siegel A. Work-related health literacy: A scoping review to clarify the concept. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):9945. doi:10.3390/ijerph18199945