IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i5p881-d212677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of an Environmental Health Literacy Assessment Screening Tool for Domestic Well Owners: The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS)

Author

Listed:
  • Veronica L. Irvin

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Diana Rohlman

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Amelia Vaughan

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Rebecca Amantia

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Claire Berlin

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

  • Molly L. Kile

    (College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA)

Abstract

In the U.S., privately owned wells are not subject to any regulatory testing requirements. Well owners must have sufficient environmental health literacy (EHL) to understand and interpret information that contain complex terms and labels to manage their water quality. The objective of this paper is to assess the performance and validity of a new EHL screening tool. The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS) is based on the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and contains six questions on comprehension, calculations and application of information. Content validity was assessed from expert review. Criterion-related and construct validity were evaluated using an online, convenience sample of adults ( n = 869). Percent of correct responses for items ranged from 53% to 96% for NVS and from 41% to 97% for WELLS. Completion time, mean scores, distributions, and internal consistency were equivalent between both scales. Higher scores suggest higher EHL. The scales were moderately correlated (ρ = 0.47, p < 0.001). Kappa agreement was 74%. Bland-Altman plots depicted little mean difference between the scales. Education and income level were positively associated with EHL. WELLS showed criterion-validity with NVS and construct validity with education and income. In practice or research, WELLS could quickly screen individuals for low EHL.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronica L. Irvin & Diana Rohlman & Amelia Vaughan & Rebecca Amantia & Claire Berlin & Molly L. Kile, 2019. "Development and Validation of an Environmental Health Literacy Assessment Screening Tool for Domestic Well Owners: The Water Environmental Literacy Level Scale (WELLS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:881-:d:212677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/881/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/881/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303482_9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Vanderslice, J., 2011. "Drinking water infrastructure and environmental disparities: Evidence and methodological considerations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(SUPPL. 1), pages 109-114.
    3. Stillo, F. & Gibson, J.M., 2017. "Exposure to contaminated drinking water and health disparities in North Carolina," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(1), pages 180-185.
    4. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jung-Min Kwak & Ju-Hee Kim, 2022. "Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the Environmental Health Literacy Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Diana Rohlman & Molly L. Kile & Veronica L. Irvin, 2022. "Developing a Short Assessment of Environmental Health Literacy (SA-EHL)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Andrew R. Binder & Katlyn May & John Murphy & Anna Gross & Elise Carlsten, 2022. "Environmental Health Literacy as Knowing, Feeling, and Believing: Analyzing Linkages between Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status and Willingness to Engage in Protective Behaviors against Health ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Kathleen M. Gray & Victoria Triana & Marti Lindsey & Benjamin Richmond & Anna Goodman Hoover & Chris Wiesen, 2021. "Knowledge and Beliefs Associated with Environmental Health Literacy: A Case Study Focused on Toxic Metals Contamination of Well Water," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristina Marcillo & Leigh-Anne Krometis & Justin Krometis, 2021. "Approximating Community Water System Service Areas to Explore the Demographics of SDWA Compliance in Virginia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    4. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    6. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    8. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    9. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    10. Jason A. Hubbart & Kaylyn S. Gootman, 2021. "A Call to Broaden Investment in Drinking Water Testing and Community Outreach Programs," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    14. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    17. Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    18. Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.
    19. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    20. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:881-:d:212677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.