research instruments used

Research Methodologies: Research Instruments

• Research Methodology Basics
• Research Instruments
• Types of Research Methodologies

Header Image

Types of Research Instruments

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.  The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology. 

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research:

• Interviews  (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys  (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take. It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

Data Collection

How to Collect Data for Your Research   This article covers different ways of collecting data in preparation for writing a thesis.

• << Previous: Research Methodology Basics
• Next: Types of Research Methodologies >>
• Last Updated: Sep 27, 2022 12:28 PM
• URL: https://paperpile.libguides.com/research-methodologies

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

What is a Research Instrument?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 9, 2020

The term research instrument refers to any tool that you may use to collect or obtain data, measure data and analyse data that is relevant to the subject of your research.

Research instruments are often used in the fields of social sciences and health sciences. These tools can also be found within education that relates to patients, staff, teachers and students.

The format of a research instrument may consist of questionnaires, surveys, interviews, checklists or simple tests. The choice of which specific research instrument tool to use will be decided on the by the researcher. It will also be strongly related to the actual methods that will be used in the specific study.

What Makes a Good Research Instrument?

A good research instrument is one that has been validated and has proven reliability. It should be one that can collect data in a way that’s appropriate to the research question being asked.

The research instrument must be able to assist in answering the research aims , objectives and research questions, as well as prove or disprove the hypothesis of the study.

It should not have any bias in the way that data is collect and it should be clear as to how the research instrument should be used appropriately.

What are the Different Types of Interview Research Instruments?

The general format of an interview is where the interviewer asks the interviewee to answer a set of questions which are normally asked and answered verbally. There are several different types of interview research instruments that may exist.

• A structural interview may be used in which there are a specific number of questions that are formally asked of the interviewee and their responses recorded using a systematic and standard methodology.
• An unstructured interview on the other hand may still be based on the same general theme of questions but here the person asking the questions (the interviewer) may change the order the questions are asked in and the specific way in which they’re asked.
• A focus interview is one in which the interviewer will adapt their line or content of questioning based on the responses from the interviewee.
• A focus group interview is one in which a group of volunteers or interviewees are asked questions to understand their opinion or thoughts on a specific subject.
• A non-directive interview is one in which there are no specific questions agreed upon but instead the format is open-ended and more reactionary in the discussion between interviewer and interviewee.

What are the Different Types of Observation Research Instruments?

An observation research instrument is one in which a researcher makes observations and records of the behaviour of individuals. There are several different types.

Structured observations occur when the study is performed at a predetermined location and time, in which the volunteers or study participants are observed used standardised methods.

Naturalistic observations are focused on volunteers or participants being in more natural environments in which their reactions and behaviour are also more natural or spontaneous.

A participant observation occurs when the person conducting the research actively becomes part of the group of volunteers or participants that he or she is researching.

Final Comments

The types of research instruments will depend on the format of the research study being performed: qualitative, quantitative or a mixed methodology. You may for example utilise questionnaires when a study is more qualitative or use a scoring scale in more quantitative studies.

Are you always finding yourself working on sections of your research tasks right up until your deadlines? Are you still finding yourself distracted the moment

The title page of your dissertation or thesis conveys all the essential details about your project. This guide helps you format it in the correct way.

Find out how you can use Scrivener for PhD Thesis & Dissertation writing to streamline your workflow and make academic writing fun again!

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

Do you need to have published papers to do a PhD? The simple answer is no but it could benefit your application if you can.

Clara is in the first year of her PhD at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain. Her research is based around understanding the reactivity of peroxynitrite with organic compounds such as commonly used drugs, food preservatives, or components of atmospheric aerosols.

Noelia is just two months away from submitting her PhD thesis at the University of East Anglia. Her research focuses on the application and the study of novel tissue engineering strategies for tendon repair, aiming to overcome some limitations from current therapies.

Join Thousands of Students

Research Instruments

• Resources for Identifying Instruments
• Assessing Instruments
• Obtaining the Full Instrument
• Getting Help

What are Research Instruments?

A research instrument is a tool used to collect, measure, and analyze data related to  your subject.

Research instruments can  be tests , surveys , scales ,  questionnaires , or even checklists .

To assure the strength of your study, it is important to use previously validated instruments!

Getting Started

Already know the full name of the instrument you're looking for? 

• Start here!

Finding a research instrument can be very time-consuming!

This process involves three concrete steps:

It is common that sources will not provide the full instrument, but they will provide a citation with the publisher. In some cases, you may have to contact the publisher to obtain the full text.

Research Tip :  Talk to your departmental faculty. Many of them have expertise in working with research instruments and can help you with this process.

• Next: Identifying a Research Instrument >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2023 9:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/researchinstruments

• UVM Libraries
• UVM Libraries Research Guides
• Dana Health Sciences Library

Research Instruments: Surveys, Questionnaires, and other Measurement Tools

• Descriptions and Search Tips
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:48 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uvm.edu/researchinstruments

HOW to Find Research Instruments

Books about research.

Information Literacy Coordinator

What are Research Instruments?

Research instruments are tools used to collect, measure, and analyze data related to your subject.

Research instruments can be  tests ,  surveys ,  scales ,  questionnaires , or even  checklists .

To assure the strength of your study, it is important to use previously validated instruments!

Finding Research Instruments

Sage Research Methods

This database contains information suited to all levels of researchers, from undergrads starting their first projects to the most senior faculty. It contains books, reference works, case studies, sample datasets, and videos. There is everything a researcher needs to design and execute a research project. 

You can explore the Methods Map in this database for guidance on:

• Designing a research project
• Quantitative methods design
• Qualitative methods design
• The practice of data analysis
• and more...

PsycINFO 1887-Current (EbscoHost)  

• This APA database contains useful information on Tests & Measures.                                                                     
• In searching, opt for the Tests & Measures selection to retrieve articles with relevant tests and measures
• Also refer to this LINK for more details about using PsycInfo
• Link to some educational resources on research instruments
• Selecting, developing, and evaluating research instruments

BOOKS from the ZU Library

Developing Research Instruments

Suggested sources of information:

• Electronic Questionnaires Design and Implementation
• Fundamental issues in questionnaire design

Instrument Development : Sage Research Methods                                     

Tips for developing and testing questionnaires

Using Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments

• Magowe, M. K. M. (2012). Procedures for an instrument development study : The Botswana experience: Research instrument development procedures.  International Nursing Review,  59 (2), 281-288.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2011.00950.x
• Zhang, H., & Schuster, T. (2018). Questionnaire instrument development in primary health care research : A plea for the use of Bayesian inference.  Canadian Family Physician,  64 (9), 699-700.

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments

It is important to assess an instrument's validity and reliability before you try to obtain its full text.

• Open  this link  for information on  How to Determine the Validity and Reliability of an Instrument
• Article: Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments.  Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences ,  204 , 164-171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129
• Chapter: Stapleton, L. M. (2019). In Hancock G. R., Stapleton L. M. and Mueller R. O.(Eds.),  The Reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences   (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649. Chapter 35

Where you find that data depends on whether the instrument is "published" or "unpublished." 

Published Instruments

Published means commercially published, and that the instrument is typically available for sale. you can find reviews of many published instruments, including validity and reliability data, in  mental measurements yearbook , unpublished instruments, unpublished means that the instrument has not been commercially published.  if the instrument is   unpublished ,   contact the author directly., you may be able to find the full text of unpublished instruments using the  library's databases..

• If you find the full text, read the  permission terms  to determine if it is available for reuse or if you will need to contact the author/publisher.
• Look for the author's email address or phone number to contact them, also letting them know that you are a student.
• If the email bounces back or phone number doesn't work, search for their institution affiliation as this may lead to their contact information. 
• Ask your professor or  a librarian  for help! They might be able to help. 
• If you have tried all of the above and still cannot locate the author, see if the author has any co-authors (in other papers) that you can contact.
• Contact authors of articles that mention the instrument you are looking for, and ask them how they obtained permission.
• Last Updated: Aug 31, 2022 3:49 PM
• URL: https://zu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1210895

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Research Instruments

This Guide provides access to databases and web based resources useful for locating a wide variety of research instruments.   

American Thoracic Society Quality of Life Resource Instruments

The goal of this website is to provide information about quality of life and functional status instruments that have been used in assessing patients with pulmonary disease or critical illness.

Cancer Prevention Research Center

Cancer Prevention Research Center provides access to copyrighted psychological measures developed at the University of Rhode Island Cancer Prevention Center. Permission is granted to use these transtheoretical model-based measures for research purposes provided the appropriate citation is referenced. All assessment inventories are available for research purposes only.

CINAHL Plus Research Instruments

CINAHL Plus provides access to research instrument records, research instrument validation records, and research instrument utilization records. These records indicate which studies have used a specific research instrument and include the purpose and variables measured, sample population, methodology, other instruments, items and questions, where the original study was mentioned, and how to obtain the actual research instrument. 

HealthMeasures

Funded by an NIH grant, HealthMeasures consists of four precise, flexible, and comprehensive measurement systems that assess physical, mental, and social health symptoms, well-being, and life satisfaction along with sensory, motor, and cognitive function: PROMIS®, NIH Toolbox®, Neuro-QoL, and ASCQ-Me. 

Medical Outcomes Trust Instruments

Medical Outcomes Trust Instruments provides a list of instruments approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Records include a description of each instrument. Readers must contact the original author or source cited for each tool to obtain approval for its use.

PROQOLID™ was created in 2002 by Mapi Research Trust to extend access to Patient Centered Outcome resources to the scientific community. PROQOLID™ is supplied exponentially with new instruments throughout the year based on recommended sources such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Research and Development scientific community.

Rehabilitation Measures Database

The Rehabilitation Measures Database was developed to help clinicians and researchers identify reliable and valid instruments used to assess patient outcomes during all phases of rehabilitation. This database provides evidence based summaries that include concise descriptions of each instrument's psychometric properties, instructions for administering and scoring each assessment as well as a representative bibliography with citations linked to PubMed abstracts. Whenever possible, we have also included a copy of the instrument for users to download or information about obtaining the instrument. This database was developed through collaboration between the Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research (CROR) at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and the Department of Medical Social Sciences Informatics group at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine with funding from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The Rehabilitation Measures Database and its content were created by CROR.   

Research Instruments (Tests & Measures)

How to use this guide, what are research instruments.

• Locating Research Instruments
• CINAHL (Nursing & Allied Health)
• PsycInfo (Psychology)
• ERIC (Education)

Research Librarian

For more help on this topic, please contact our Research Help Desk: [email protected] or 781-768-7303. Stay up-to-date on our current hours . Note: all hours are EST.

This Guide was created by Carolyn Swidrak (retired).

This guide will help you discover resources related to research instruments. This includes information about various measurement tools, including reviews, how to obtain a copy, articles about studies that use various instruments, and more.

If you are a doctoral student you may need to find a research instrument for your own use. Other students may need to find information about the use of research instruments. A good way to discover research instruments that may be relevant to your own research is by reading the methods section in research articles.

This guide provides information on how to find information about research instruments

• using credible websites, or

Note: While the Regis Library can help you find information about tests and measures, we cannot obtain research instruments for you.

Research instruments are devices used to measure or collect data on various variables being studied. Examples include measurement tools such as:

• questionnaires
• observation schedules
• interview schedules
• Next: Locating Research Instruments >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 3:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.regiscollege.edu/research_instruments

Finding Research Instruments, Surveys, and Tests: Home

• Create Tests
• Search for Tests
• Online Test Sources
• Dissertations/Theses
• More about ERIC
• Citing in APA Style
• More about MMY
• More about PsycINFO

What are Research Instruments

A research instrument is a survey, questionnaire, test, scale, rating, or tool designed to measure the variable(s), characteristic(s), or information of interest, often a behavioral or psychological characteristic. Research instruments can be helpful tools to your research study.

"Careful planning for data collection can help with setting realistic goals. Data collection instrumentation, such as surveys, physiologic measures (blood pressure or temperature), or interview guides, must be identified and described. Using previously validated collection instruments can save time and increase the study's credibility. Once the data collection procedure has been determined, a time line for completion should be established." (Pierce, 2009, p. 159)

• Pierce, L.L. (2009). Twelve steps for success in the nursing research journey. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 40(4), 154-162.

A research instrument is developed as a method of data generation by researchers and information about the research instrument is shared in order to establish the credibility and validity of the method. Whether other researchers may use the research instrument is the decision of the original author-researchers. They may make it publicly available for free or for a price or they may not share it at all. Sources about research instruments have a purpose of describing the instrument to inform. Sources may or may not provide the instrument itself or the contact information of the author-researcher. The onus is on the reader-researcher to try to find the instrument itself or to contact the author-researcher to request permission for its use, if necessary.

How to choose the right one?

Are you trying to find background information about a research instrument? Or are you trying to find and obtain an actual copy of the instrument?

If you need information about a research instrument, what kind of information do you need? Do you need information on the structure of the instrument, its content, its development, its psychometric reliability or validity? What do you need?

If you plan to obtain an actual copy of the instrument to use in research, you need to be concerned not only with obtaining the instrument, but also obtaining permission to use the instrument. Research instruments may be copyrighted. To obtain permission, contact the copyright holder in writing (print or email).

If someone posts a published test or instrument without the permission of the copyright holder, they may be violating copyright and could be legally liable. 

What are you trying to measure? For example, if you are studying depression, are you trying to measure the duration of depression, the intensity of depression, the change over time of the episodes, … what? The instrument must measure what you need or it is useless to you.

Factors to consider when selecting an instrument are • Well-tested factorial structure, validity & reliability • Availability of supportive materials and technology for entering, analyzing and interpreting results • Availability of normative data as a reference for evaluating, interpreting, or placing in context individual test scores • Applicable to wide range of participants • Can also be used as personal development tool/exercise • User-friendliness & administrative ease • Availability; can you obtain it? • Does it require permission from the owner to use it? • Financial cost • Amount of time required

Check the validity and reliability of tests and instruments. Do they really measure what they claim to measure? Do they measure consistently over time, with different research subjects and ethnic groups, and after repeated use? Research articles that used the test will often include reliability and validity data.

How Locate Instrument

Realize that searching for an instrument may take a lot of time. They may be published in a book or article on a particular subject. They be published and described in a dissertation. They may posted on the Internet and freely available. A specific instrument may be found in multiple publications and have been used for a long time. Or it may be new and only described in a few places. It may only be available by contacting the person who developed it, who may or may not respond to your inquiry in a timely manner.

There are a variety of sources that may used to search for research instruments. They include books, databases, Internet search engines, Web sites, journal articles, and dissertations.

A few key sources and search tips are listed in this guide.

Permission to Use the Test

If you plan to obtain an actual copy of the instrument to use in research, you need to be concerned not only with obtaining the instrument, but also obtaining permission to use the instrument. Research instruments are copyrighted. To obtain permission, contact the copyright holder to obtain permission in writing (print or email). Written permission is a record that you obtained permission.

It is a good idea to have them state in wiritng that they are indeed the copyright holder and that they grant you permission to use the instrument. If you wish to publish the actual instrument in your paper, get permission for that, too. You may write about the instrument without obtaining permission. (But remember to cite it!)

If someone posts a published test or instrument without the permission of the copyright holder, they are violating copyright and could be legally liable. 

Subject Guide

• Next: Create Tests >>
• Last Updated: Mar 12, 2024 5:10 PM
• URL: https://library.indianastate.edu/instruments

Biokinesiology & Physical Therapy

• Books & Websites
• Journal Literature

About Research Instruments

Databases for finding research instruments, find research instruments in instrument databases, find research instruments in literature databases.

• Mobile Resources: Drug Info
• Mobile Resources: Consumer Health
• Mobile Resources: Books & Articles
• AMA Style (11th ed): Citing Your Sources
• Dissertations/Theses/Archives
• Transformative Agreements / Read and Publish
• Health Statistics and Data
• Professional Associations/Resources
• Library Instruction and Tutorials
• Research instruments are measurement tools, such as questionnaires, scales, and surveys, that researchers use to measure variables in research studies.  
• In most cases, it is better to use a previously validated instrument rather than create one from scratch.
• Always evaluate instruments for relevancy, validity, and reliability. 
• Many older yet relevant, valid and reliable instruments are still popular today. It is time consuming and costly to validate instruments, so re-using instruments is common and helpful for connecting your study with an existing body of research.
• Although you can conduct an internet search to find research instruments on publisher and organization websites, library databases are usually the best resources for identifying relevant, validated and reliable research instruments. 
• Locating instruments takes time and requires you to follow multiple references until you reach the source. 
• Databases provide information about instruments, but they do not provide access to the instruments themselves. 
• In most cases, to access and use the actual instruments, you must contact the author or purchase the instrument from the publisher. 
• In many cases, you will have to pay a fee to use the instrument.
• Even if the full instrument is freely available, you should contact the owner for permission to use and for any instructions and training necessary to use the instrument properly. 
• CINAHL Complete This link opens in a new window Most comprehensive database of full-text for nursing & allied health journals from 1937 to present. Includes access to scholarly journal articles, dissertations, magazines, pamphlets, evidence-based care sheets, books, and research instruments.
• Health and Psychosocial Instruments (HAPI) This link opens in a new window Locate measurement instruments such as surveys, questionnaires, tests, surveys, coding schemes, checklists, rating scales, vignettes, etc. Scope includes medicine, nursing, public health , psychology, social work, communication, sociology, etc.
• Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) This link opens in a new window Use MMY to find REVIEWS of testing instruments. Actual test instruments are NOT provided. Most reviews discuss validity and reliability of tool. To purchase or obtain the actual test materials, you will need to contact the test publisher(s).
• PsycINFO This link opens in a new window Abstract and citation database of scholarly literature in psychological, social, behavioral, and health sciences. Includes journal articles, books, reports, theses, and dissertations from 1806 to present.
• PsycTESTS This link opens in a new window PsycTESTS is a research database that provides access to psychological tests, measures, scales, surveys, and other assessments as well as descriptive information about the test and its development. Records also discuss reliability and validity of the tool. Some records include full-text of the test.

• Rehabilitation Measures Database Database of instruments to screen patients and monitor their progress. Developed by Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Department of Medical Social Sciences Informatics group.

• << Previous: Journal Literature
• Next: Mobile Resources: Clinical Info Tools >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 4:20 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/healthsciences/pt

SCED Science Education Subject Guide

• JoVE Journal of Visualized Experiments
• Find Articles
• Google Scholar
• Find Journals
• Find Books / eBooks
• Reference Books
• Link Streaming Media in Canvas
• Add JoVE videos to Canvas
• Add Academic Video Online videos to Canvas
• NGSS and Common Core Standards
• Learning tools for the classroom
• Teaching resources & Lesson Plans
• Resources for Teachers
• Classroom discussion and collaboration tools
• Create diagrams and visual aids
• Emerging Trends and Methodologies
• EndNote Help
• Mendeley Web Importer
• Mendeley Desktop
• Mendeley Folders and Sub-folders
• Mendeley Cite Add-On
• Mendeley Resource Center
• Upload documents from other reference managers
• Research Design Handbooks

Introduction to Research Instruments

• ERIC for Research Instruments
• ETS TestLink: Test Collection Database for Research Instruments
• Dissertations and Theses for Research Instruments
• Books on Research Methods and Instruments
• Science Education Survey Instruments
• RSS Feeds! Science News
• Organization to Enhance Science Education
• Science Research Organization
• Professional Societies for Biology Education
• Professional Societies for Chemistry Education
• Professional Societies for Geoscience Education
• Professional Societies for Health Education
• Professional Societies for Physics Education
• Help with Research!

Research Instruments 

Educational research results in evidence based practices, put into action by the educational community.

Instruments allow programs to collect relevant data  related to a research problem, designed for  measuring their intended outcomes.  Various types of instruments may include surveys, tests, questionnaires, achievement / aptitude tests, observation forms, tally sheets, etc…

Use these following pages to guide you in locating

• Instrument(s) by name or acronym
• Test reviews and various forms of validity and / or reliability
• Instruments used to test a specific variable

Also useful:

• Research Methodology a step-by-step guide for beginners
• << Previous: Research Design Handbooks
• Next: ERIC for Research Instruments >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 12:04 PM
• URL: https://csulb.libguides.com/sced

Tests and Measurements Resources: Home

• Psychosocial Instruments
• Health Sciences Instruments
• The Mental Measurements Yearbook Call Number: Ref Z5814.P8 B932 Publication Date: Various dates through 2017 A book of test reviews. Use the index to search by subject. All Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) entries contain descriptive information (test purpose, publisher, pricing, population and scores) and edited reviews written by leading content area experts. To be included in the MMY, a test must be commercially available, published in the English language and be new or revised since it last appeared in the series.

The following are not databases of actual tests and measurement tools. Rather, they are databases of articles/studies that have used certain tests and tools. 

Use some of the same search strategies that you would to find any journal article. To narrow your search to articles that include test or survey instruments, some additional strategies are listed with each database description below.

• CINAHL Ultimate This database includes journals from the fields of nursing and allied health. There are several search strategies to use to find articles that include research instruments. 1. Use the drop-down menu to select IN Instrumentation and enter the most unique word in the instrument name. 2. Do a regular keyword search and then limit the results by Publication Type to: Questionnaire/Scale and Research Instrument(s)
• Dissertations & Theses This is not actually a test database, but it can be useful in the search for appropriate research instruments. The database contains full text of dissertations accepted for doctoral degrees by accredited North American educational institutions and over 200 other institutions. Also contains some masters' theses, although many fewer. If a doctoral student developed an instrument to use in their dissertation research, this will probably give you access. It's often very helpful to see how others approached their graduate research and the instruments they used.
• ETS Test Link The Test Collection at ETS (Educational Testing Service) is a library of more than 25,000 tests and other measurement devices that makes information on standardized tests and research instruments available to researchers, graduate students, and teachers. Collected from the early 1900s to the present, the Test Collection at ETS is the largest such compilation in the world.
• Health & Psychosocial Instruments (HAPI) HaPI identifies tests and measurements that have been discussed in journal articles and other sources. The majority of these are not for sale by commercial publishers. Instead, HaPI includes journal citations which may give you leads to locating the instrument itself. In some cases the test itself is included in the journal article. In other cases, only sample questions are included. Sometimes it will be necessary to contact the author of the test.
• Medline Ultimate A large database of biomedical journals. Helpful MESH headings for the concept of tests and measures include: questionnaires, psychological tests, psychometrics outcome, and process assessment. Database may be searched using keywords from the title of a particular instrument.
• PsycINFO & PsycARTICLES Search your keywords in the PsycInfo database, adding the words "validity" or "reliability" or both. This will find articles that describe the validity or reliability of measurement instruments on your topic. For example: anxiety and children and validity and reliability. NOTE: You can also search for keywords and then use the word "appended" in the "tests and measures" field to find articles that include the actual instrument. Just be aware that you may not find very many appended measures.

Finding Tests through Google

Once you've identified a test from a journal article, you might find the actual instrument through Google. 

Getting permission to use a test

Use Google to find the test and to see if you can identify the rights holder.

If the test is commercially available, you may need to purchase rights to use the test. 

If the test is unpublished (typically one that you have found in a journal article), you should contact the author of the article to seek permission. 

• Next: Psychosocial Instruments >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 8:45 AM
• URL: https://belmont.libguides.com/testsandmeasurements

Research Instruments (Tests & Scales): Descriptions of Research Instruments

• Research Instruments used in Articles
• Descriptions of Research Instruments
• Obtaining & Using Research Instruments

Mental Measurements Yearbook and Tests in Print

The Mental Measurements Yearbook   contains reviews of English-language tests and instruments that are commercially published. MMY reviews usually provide descriptive information about the test, psychometric properties, test development and norming, and a summary including recommended uses.  Carlson Library has Yearbooks 2-16.  Use the Buros Institute test finder below to identify tests included in the yearbook and which edition of the yearbook they were most recently reviewed in.

Tests in Print includes information on test purpose, test publisher, in-print status, price, test acronym, intended test population, administration times, publication date(s), and test author(s).

These resources are produced by the Buros Institute , which maintains its own website useful for identifying tests included in these book series.

CINAHL: Instrument Descriptions

CINAHL  is best known as a tool to identify articles in the nursing and allied health literature, but it can also be used to find information on instruments used in nursing and allied health research.

Beginning in 1994, CINAHL began indexing research instruments. (NOTE: The indexing is retrospective; many of the indexed instruments were developed before 1994; there don’t appear to be any new entries after 2005). Each instrument record includes

• developers' names,
• year developed,
• variables of interest,
• original population,
• question format,
• administration,
• psychometrics,
• copyright holders,
• modifications, and
• ordering address.

To identify instruments for a given condition or situation, do a search for the topic of interest, then limit the search to the publication type Research Instrument .  To see the full listing of instruments indexed in CINAHL, type PT research instrument in the Find box and hit search.  The PT (Publication Type) convention tells CINAHL to search for "research instrument" in the publication type field.

For more information about searching CINAHL, see these resources .

CINAHL Search for Instrument Descriptions

Other online resources for tests and instrument information.

• TestLink Database The Test Collection at ETS is a database of more than 25,000 tests and other measurement devices, most of which were created by authors outside ETS. With information about tests from the early 1900s to today, the collection is the largest compilation of such materials in the world. It contains tests from U.S. publishers, individual test authors and non-U.S. sources.
• Finding Information on Psychological Tests From the American Psychological Association. The APA provides detailed information about finding information about published and unpublished instruments.

Print Resources for Test and Instrument Information

• << Previous: Research Instruments used in Articles
• Next: Obtaining & Using Research Instruments >>
• Last Updated: May 19, 2023 10:09 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utoledo.edu/instruments

• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

Validation of an online version of the rapid estimate of adult literacy in dentistry-30 for use by medical and dental students in Nigeria

• Abayomi Abdul-Afeez Afolabi 1 ,
• Adetomiwa Oluwanifemi Afolabi 2 &
• Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan 3  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  485 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

93 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The need for online adaptations of research instruments became more pronounced amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to modify the REALD-30 for online application (eREALD-30) and evaluate its content validity and internal reliability among medical and dental students in Nigeria.

The eREALD-30 required participants to identify if each of the listed words were related to dentistry by ticking either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response with the option to mark ‘don’t know’ for words they were unsure about. Scores ranged from 0 to 30. Five oral health experts reviewed the eREALD-30 for cultural appropriateness, while content validity was evaluated by 10 medical and dental students. Internal reliability was assessed with 320 students recruited from 15 medical and dental schools spanning the country’s six geopolitical zones. These students also completed an oral health status assessment tool. Data collection utilized an online survey platform. Validity of the eREALD-30 was determined through correlation analysis between eREALD-30 scores and the oral health status assessment tool. Furthermore, binary logistic regression analysis was employed to explore the assocations between participants’ oral health status and their oral health literacy, adjusting for age, sex, and level of medical and dental education.

Out of the respondents, 178 (55.6%) exhibited poor oral health literacy, while 205 (64.1%) reported having good oral health status. Those with good oral health literacy demonstrated significantly higher odds of having good oral health status (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.02–2.54; p  = 0.04). However, individuals with good oral health literacy had increased odds of good oral health status after adjusting for confounding factors,, though this association did not retain statistical significance (AOR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.86–2.24; p  = 0.17). The eREALD-30 displayed strong internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.933), indicating its reliability in assessing oral health literacy levels, alongside a high content validity score of 0.90.

The study finding suggests that the e-version of the REALD-30 was reliable and valid for use among medical and dental students in Nigeria.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

An individual’s oral health status is intricately tied to their level of oral health literacy [ 1 ]. This concept encapsulates the degree to which individuals possess the capacity to acquire, process, and understand essential health information and services needed to make informed decisions regarding oral health [ 2 ]. It involves the skill to comprehend written language, effectively communicate health-related information, navigate the healthcare system, and achieve and maintain good oral health [ 3 ]. Oral health literacy encompasses both the ability to access information and the proficiency to apply that knowledge in making informed decisions concerning oral health [ 4 ]. It serves as a strong predictor of an individual’s overall health, health-related behaviors, and health outcomes [ 5 , 6 ].

Factors such as educational and socioeconomic status influence oral health literacy [ 7 ], which serves as a crucial factor in addressing oral health disparities and promoting the oral well-being of individuals [ 8 ]. Lower levels of oral health literacy have been associated with delayed diagnosis, insufficient adherence to medical guidelines, increased mortality risks, poorer health outcomes, and higher healthcare costs [ 9 ]. Additionally, individuals with inadequate oral health literacy are more likely to miss dental appointments [ 10 ], a recognized risk factor for heightened rates of dental caries [ 11 ] and compromised periodontal health [ 12 ]. Thus, it is imperative to identify individuals with low oral health literacy to develop programs aimed at reducing their susceptibility to oral diseases.

There are several tools for assessing oral health literacy, one of which is the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry (REALD)-30 [ 13 ]. This assessment tool aims to gauge dental word recognition and consists of 30 common dental terms with differing levels of complexity [ 13 ]. It is an interviewer-administered questionnaire that assesses reading comprehension, numeracy, listening, and decision-making skills [ 14 ]. The REALD-30 can be employed in studies involving adult populations or communities [ 15 ]. Participants are required to orally pronounce each word to the interviewer, with one point assigned for each correctly pronounced word. The overall oral health literacy score is calculated by summing the scores for all correctly pronounced words, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 30. The REALD-30 has demonstrated good reliability and validity [ 3 , 16 , 17 ].

However, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face interactions became restricted, leading to a transition towards online platforms and self-administered questionnaires for epidemiological research [ 18 ]. Although phone interviews remained viable for questionnaire delivery, online surveys provided benefits such as wider outreach, cost-effectiveness, and reduced time requirements [ 19 ]. Therefore, an electronic rendition of the REALD-30 could improve the viability of conducting online investigations into oral health literacy.

To address this gap, the current study adapted the REALD-30 for online utilization, termed as the eREALD-30. Furthermore, there is a necessity to facilitate the collection of data on oral health status. Many surveys conducted in Nigeria have been sporadic and reliant on convenience sampling [ 20 ]. Most of the data originated from studies conducted in the southwest region of Nigeria or focused on specific sub-populations such as pregnant women and school-aged children [ 20 , 21 ]. There is a scarcity of studies on oral health literacy in Nigeria. The limited research that exists utilized the REALD-30 without validation evidence for any population in Nigeria, typically conducted in hospital settings, often confined to a single hospital [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. However, these studies indicated that low oral health literacy correlated with fair/poor oral hygiene status, gingivitis [ 4 ], suboptimal periodontal health [ 22 ], limited periodontal health knowledge [ 22 ], inadequate oral self-care behavior [ 22 ], substandard dental service utilization [ 22 ], and dental anxiety [ 23 ]. A validated tool for assessing oral health literacy is imperative to support epidemiological investigations in Nigeria. Thus, the aim of this study was to ascertain the internal reliability and content validity of the eREALD-30 as an appropriate instrument for evaluating oral health literacy among undergraduate medical and dental students in Nigeria.

Ethical consideration

The study obtained approval from the Health Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Public Health at Obafemi Awolowo University (IPH/OAU/12/2024), ensuring adherence to ethical guidelines. All participants provided informed consent, which included detailed explanations of the study’s objectives, potential risks and benefits, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time. To safeguard participant confidentiality, personal identifiers such as names were not collected. Participants did not receive any direct benefits or compensation for their participation in the study.

Study Design

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional analysis. The content validity and internal reliability of the eREALD-30 were assessed among medical and dental students in Nigeria.

Survey instruments

The survey comprised three sections. The initial part of the questionnaire gathered data concerning participants’ socio-demographic profiles. The second section contained the eREALD-30 assessment. Lastly, the third section included the oral health status evaluation tool. Please refer to Appendix 1 for further details.

Socio-demographic information

The sociodemographic information sought were details on the participant’s age, sex, name of institution and current educational level in the medical and dental school.

Online Version of the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry (eREALD-30)

The eREALD-30 comprises 30 dental health-related terms arranged according to their level of difficulty. In the eREALD-30, these terms were presented in the online questionnaire, and participants were instructed to indicate whether each listed word pertained to dentistry by selecting either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Additionally, participants had the option to skip words by selecting ‘don’t know’. Each ‘yes’ response was scored as ‘1’ for the corresponding word, while ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ responses were scored as ‘0’. The potential score range was from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of oral health literacy. To categorize respondents’ oral health literacy levels into good and poor, the mean score (15) was utilized. Scores equal to or below the mean indicated poor oral health literacy, while scores above the mean indicated good oral health literacy.

Oral Health Status Assessment

Data regarding participants’ oral health status was gathered to assess the validity of the eREALD-30 by correlating eREALD-30 scores with respondents’ self-reported oral health status [ 24 ]. Oral health was evaluated using a self-report questionnaire for dental health status assessment tool [ 25 ], comprising 10 items such as “How often do you brush your teeth during the day?“, “Do you use toothpaste containing fluoride?“, “Do you visit a dentist regularly for check-ups?“, “Do you experience bleeding while brushing your teeth?“, among others. Each affirmative response was scored as ‘1’, reflecting good oral health behavior/status, while poor oral health behavior/status received a score of ‘0’. The score ranged from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating better oral health status. To categorize respondents’ oral health status into good and poor, the mean score (5) was utilized. Scores equal to or below the mean indicated poor oral health status, while scores above the mean indicated good oral health status. Tts sensitivity score is 85.1% and false positive rate is 29% [ 25 ]. The tool had however, not been validated for use in Nigeria.

Validation of Survey Instrument

Step 1: Development of the eREALD-30 – The content of the REALD-30 was retained. The eREALD-30 was then formatted into an online version. However, for the eREALD-30, respondents were required to write down a word that spontaneously comes to mind for each of the 30 words.

Step 2: Expert Review of eREALD-30 - Five experts specializing in cariology, periodontology, community dentistry, and oral medicine were tasked with evaluating the online version of the eREALD-30. These experts were selected for their qualifications as practicing dentists within academia, boasting a publication history of at least 25 works in their respective fields and a teaching tenure of no less than 10 years in Nigeria. Their considerable expertise had been cultivated through extensive practical experience and formal education, making them well-equipped to accurately convey terminology within the Nigerian context. Their feedback was instrumental in refining the content’s structure to ensure a gradual progression in terminological complexity. Moreover, they meticulously reviewed spellings, wording, and language to ensure cultural relevance in the questionnaire. No unique comments were received.

Step 3: Content validity – On December 28th, 2022, the online version of the questionnaire was distributed to a group of ten medical and dental students, purposefully selected to participate in the survey and complete the form. Attention was given to ensuring representation from all five tiers of medical and dental education, as well as maintaining gender balance among participants. Each student was instructed to evaluate the relevance of every word in the survey using a 4-point scale ranging from least (scored 1) to most (scored 4) relevant. Subsequently, the content validity index for the eREALD-30 was calculated. Four students provided unique comments, which led to some adjustments in the questionnaire sequence, particularly in the placement order of the eREALD-30, and the inclusion of clearer instructions for respondents on how to complete the eREALD-30. The content validity index was computed, resulting in an overall value of 0.78, which was considered satisfactory based on established criteria [ 26 ].

Step 4: Internal reliability - Participants for the survey were recruited from 15 medical and dental schools spanning the country’s six geopolitical zones. Support from contacts within each school facilitated the recruitment process, ensuring representation across various academic levels ranging from 200 to 600 levels. These contacts received periodic reminders to continue recruiting respondents as necessary. Eligibility criteria for the reliability assessment included individuals aged 18 years and above, residing in Nigeria, and providing informed consent for study participation. Specifically, only medical and dental students currently enrolled in Nigerian medical and dental schools were considered for inclusion in the study, with no exclusion criteria in place. There were 320 participants engaged with assessing the internal reliability of the eREALD-30.

Data collection was conducted using the online survey platform Survey Monkey®. Survey links were configured to maintain respondent anonymity, permitting participants to freely modify their answers before submission, and imposing no time constraints. Each electronic device was restricted to submitting the survey only once. Administered in English, the questionnaire links were distributed to eligible participants—those aged 18 years and above, capable of giving consent, and proficient in reading the survey—via emails and social media platforms accessible to medical and dental students. The survey remained open for participation from January 24th, 2023, to May 19th, 2023.

Data analysis

We assessed the internal reliability of the eREALD-30 by computing Cronbach’s alpha, a metric indicating internal consistency. The classification method for Cronbach’s alpha was based on the modified Landis and Koch categorization, as utilized by El Tantawi et al. [ 27 ]. Specifically, Cronbach’s alpha values falling between 0 and 0.39 were categorized as indicating a low level of internal consistency, those within the range of 0.40 to 0.79 were considered to demonstrate a moderate level, and values ranging from 0.81 to 1 were deemed to signify an excellent level of internal consistency. To ascertain the validity of the eREALD-30, we established correlations between the eREALD-30 scores and the scores obtained from the oral health status assessment.

The collected data underwent meticulous evaluation for completeness, with only fully completed datasets considered for entry and subsequent analysis. The analysis was conducted utilizing IBM SPSS (version 26.0). Descriptive statistics, including frequency, counts, and percentages, were utilized to depict the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, as well as to outline the distribution of the primary study variables. Furthermore, a binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the relationship between participants’ oral health status and their oral health literacy. The regression model was adjusted for age, sex, and level of medical and dental education.

Table  1 highlights the Content Validity Index for each component of the eREALD-30. The Item Content Validity index (I-CVI) of individual items reflects a substantial level of validity, except for items 9 (Sealants), 20 (incipient), and 29 (Apicectomy), which exhibit lower validity. The Scale Content Validity Index Average (S-CVI/Ave) aggregates to 0.90, signifying a strong overall validity for the instrument.

Table  2 displays the socio-demographic attributes of the 320 participants involved in evaluating the instrument’s reliability. Among them, 255 (79.7%) were aged 17–24 years, 167 (52.2%) were female, 182 (56.9%) were pursuing medicine, 170 (53.1%) hailed from the southwest geopolitical zone, and 90 (28.1%) were in their second year of study.

Figure  1 presents a summary of responses to the eREALD-30. Specifically, 252 (78.8%), 244 (76.3%), and 249 (77.8%) of respondents identified the terms sugar, smoking, and brush as dental terminologies, respectively. Moreover, 202 (63.1%), 209 (65.3%), 203 (63.4%), and 209 (65.3%) also recognized enamel, fluoride, extraction, and dentition as dental terminologies, respectively. Conversely, terms such as bruxism, apicectomy, and incipient were not associated with dentistry.

Response to the eRapid estimate of adult literacy in dentistry-30 (eREALD-30) by medical and dental students in Nigeria ( N  = 320)

Table  3 illustrates that 178 (55.6%) respondents exhibited poor oral health literacy, while 205 (64.1%) respondents reported good oral health status. Individuals with good oral health literacy displayed statistically significant higher odds of good oral health status (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.02–2.54; p  = 0.04).

Upon adjusting for confounding factors, individuals with good oral health literacy still demonstrated increased odds of good oral health status, although the association no longer reached statistical significance (AOR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.86–2.24; p  = 0.17).

Table  4 displays the outcomes of the internal reliability assessment for the two instruments utilized in this study. The Cronbach’s alpha score for the eREALD-30 was 0.9333, signifying a high level of internal consistency and excellent reliability for the instrument. In contrast, the Cronbach’s alpha score for the oral health status assessment tool was 0.194, indicating poor reliability of the instrument due to its low value.

In this study, we validated an online adaptation of the REALD-30 questionnaire, with findings indicating high internal consistency, thus affirming the reliability of the eREALD-30 [ 28 ]. Moreover, the tool exhibited substantial content validity, although items 9, 20 and 29 yielded lower CVI scores. In addition, the lack of a significant correlation between oral health status score and eREALD-30 score suggests a potential limitation in the tool’s capacity to distinguish between individuals with differing oral health status. It’s crucial to interpret this constrained discriminatory ability of the eREALD-30 cautiously, particularly considering the low reliability score observed in the oral health status assessment tool.

One of the strengths of the current study was the adaptation of a traditionally face-to-face tool for online utilization, which holds particular significance during events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where face-to-face interactions are restricted. The successful validation of the online version of REALD-30 provides a critical resource for conducting remote studies, ensuring the continuity of data collection even amidst challenging circumstances. Additionally, we employed a tailored oral health assessment tool to ascertain the oral health status of study participants. Moreover, we recruited a participant population familiar with medical terminology, facilitating a clear comprehension and application of oral health concepts and its relevance [ 29 ]. Moreover, this tool could serve as a cost-efficient screening instrument to identify individuals requiring oral health care, especially in remote and hard-to-reach communities, particularly in resource-constrained settings, as low oral health literacy is associated with missed dental appointments [ 30 ]. Consequently, the tool could potentially furnish valuable insights to oral health authorities for crafting more tailored educational strategies for oral health within these communities. Nevertheless, a notable limitation may arise from the restricted access to internet facilities in such remote areas and among rural populations.

However, the study encountered a few limitations. Firstly, it was confined to medical and dental students, thereby constraining its generalizability to other populations. Medical and dental students were chosen for validating the inaugural online version of the REALD-30 due to their professional expertise, educational background, accessibility, and the practicability of conducting the study with this specific cohort. Their input could significantly enhance the refinement and validation of the test for both clinical practice and research purposes. Moreover, the study solely involved participants from Nigeria, restricting its applicability beyond countries with socioeconomic profiles akin to Nigeria’s. Additionally, the sample was obtained via convenience sampling, potentially biasing towards participants with higher socioeconomic status who possess smartphones and internet access. Consequently, this further impedes the generalizability of the findings to all medical and dental students hailing from households with lower socioeconomic status. Despite these limitations, the study yields novel insights.

First, the robust internal reliability and content validity of the eREALD-30 indicate that the items within the instrument effectively measure various dimensions of the same trait or construct, which is deemed acceptable [ 31 ]. These metrics also affirm the reliability and quality of the eREALD-30 for implementation among medical and dental students in Nigeria. Nonetheless, establishing the validity of the eREALD-30 across diverse cultures, age brackets, and educational backgrounds remains imperative. Achieving this necessitates meticulous translation and adaptation of the instrument, along with pre-testing and cognitive interviews conducted on the target populations, albeit this process poses its own set of challenges [ 32 ].

Second, our analysis revealed a low reliability of the oral health status assessment tool. This could be attributed to various factors such as a limited number of questions, weak interconnections among items, or the presence of diverse constructs within the tool [ 32 ]. We tried to mitigate the risk of using a tool with low reliability for this study by using an oral health status assessment tool that had been validated, since reliability is part of the assessment of validity [ 33 ]. This study finding underscores the possible need for developing a reliable oral health status assessment tool for medical and dental students in Nigeria. Self-reported oral health status may be a viable alternative method. Previous research has indicated that self-reported assessments of oral health status can be dependable and accurately reflect clinical conditions [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Utilizing self-reported measures of oral health offers a more convenient and cost-effective approach to evaluating oral health conditions across diverse populations and demographics, necessitating fewer resources and shorter research durations [ 37 ]. Notably, self-reported oral health status has already been utilized to assess the oral health of the general population in Nigeria [ 38 , 39 ]. Additionally, single-item assessments of subjective health and well-being have exhibited enhanced validity in predicting health-related behaviors [ 40 ].

Third, the absence of a statistically significant association between poor oral health literacy and poorer oral health status, even after adjusting for confounders, sharply contrasts with the prevailing body of literature, which consistently demonstrates a strong link between oral health literacy and self-reported oral health conditions [ 4 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. This discrepancy in findings may stem from variations in methodologies, assessment tools, and the demographic composition of the study populations. Previous investigations typically encompass general populations or patients attending dental clinics, whereas our study specifically targeted medical and dental students. It’s plausible that the oral health literacy levels of our participants were already relatively high owing to their status as undergraduate medical and dental students. These students undergo comprehensive education and training in oral health as an integral part of their curriculum, which could have positively influenced their oral health literacy levels without necessarily leading to improved oral health status.

Fourth, nearly half of the participants displayed inadequate levels of oral health literacy. Considering the educational attainment of undergraduate students, one might expect that the concept and importance of oral health would be readily comprehensible and applied, regardless of their field of study [ 44 ]. However, our findings challenge this assumption. Prior studies have already suggested that a significant proportion of undergraduates have never sought dental care [ 45 , 46 ]. The medical and dental schools targeted in our survey were those housing both medical and dental institutions, potentially granting medical students enhanced access to dental education and services. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the factors contributing to the heightened rates of poor oral health literacy among medical and dental students in Nigeria.

The findings of this research hold several important implications. Firstly, the successful validation of the online adaptation of the REALD-30 questionnaire underscores its reliability, particularly evident in its outstanding internal consistency. However, the lower scores for items 9, 20 and 29 suggests potential limitations in the tool’s capacity to accurately gauge various levels of oral health literacy. Specifically, procedures like fissure sealants and apicectomy are not commonly provided by dentists in Nigeria and so may not be part of the routine oral health vocabulary of the populace. Incipient caries is also not a routine terminology; the synonym ‘enamel caries’ is more often used. The high ‘don’t’ know’ response points to this. Consequently, if these items yield low scores among medical and dental students, there is a risk that such scores may disproportionately influence the results of the eREALD-30 for the broader population, inaccurately reflecting levels of oral health literacy. Thus, it might be prudent to develop a culturally relevant oral health literacy tool with content tailored to specific contexts, as indicated by these findings of the content validity index. A validation process involving non-dental experts may help with adapting the eREALD-30 to be culturally appropriate wherever it would be used.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights the internal reliability and structural content validity, along with the moderate to high individual content validity, of the adapted REALD-30 for online use (eREALD-30) when administered to medical and dental students in Nigeria. Nonetheless, it is imperative to validate the tool with diverse population groups to ensure its applicability and relevance for future online research, especially in scenarios such as pandemics where conventional face-to-face data collection may pose challenges. Additionally, future studies should delve into examining the correlation between oral health literacy and oral health status to uncover potential indicators of poor oral health status in Nigeria.

Data availability

All the data related to this study are presented in the results.

Abbreviations

Adjusted Odds Ratio

Confidence Interval

Corona Virus Infectious Disease 2019

Online version of Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry

Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry

Firmino RT, Ferreira FM, Paiva SM, Granville-Garcia AF, Fraiz FC, Martins CC. Oral health literacy and associated oral conditions: a systematic review. JADA. 2017;148(8):604–13.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Institute of Medicine (US). In: Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA, editors. Committee on Health Literacy. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004.

Google Scholar  

Baskaradoss JK. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health status. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0640-1

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Inegbenosun H, Azodo CC. Association between oral health literacy, gingival health and oral hygiene among dental patients. Nig J Dent Res. 2020;5(1):7–13.

Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):9–19.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107.

Horowitz AM. Health literacy: A link to community interventions; Children’s oral health summit. San Luis Obispo, CA. 2014.

Horowitz AM, Kleinman DV. Oral health literacy: a pathway to reducing oral health disparities in Maryland. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(Suppl 1):S26–30.

Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, Wang F, Osmond D, Daher C, Palacios J, Sullivan GD, Bindman AB. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475–82.

Baskaradoss JK. The association between oral health literacy and missed dental appointments. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(11):867–74.

Wigen TI, Skaret E, Wang NJ. Dental avoidance behaviour in parent and child as risk indicators for caries in 5-year-old children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009;19(6):431–7.

Wehmeyer MM, Corwin CL, Guthmiller JM, Lee JY. The impact of oral health literacy on periodontal health status. J Public Health Dent. 2014;74(1):80–7.

Lee JY, Rozier RG, Lee SY, Bender D, Ruiz RE. Development of a word recognition instrument to test health literacy in dentistry: the REALD-30–a brief communication. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67:94–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00021.x

Dickson-Swift V, Kenny A, Farmer J, Gussy M, Larkins S. Measuring oral health literacy: a scoping review of existing tools. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:148. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-148

Sistani MM, Montazeri A, Yazdani R, Murtomaa H. New oral health literacy instrument for public health: development and pilot testing. J Invest Clin Dentistry. 2013;4:1–9.

Devi MA, Soni S, Radha, Kadanakuppe S, Pallavi N. Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to assess Oral Health Literacy among College students in Bangalore City. Int J Contemp Dent. 2011;2(2):43–7.

Wong HM, Bridges SM, Yiu CK, McGrath CP, Au TK, Parthasarathy DS. Development and validation of Hong Kong Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry. J Investig Clin Dent. 2012;3(2):118–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00113.x

Hensen B, Mackworth-Young CRS, Simwinga M, Abdelmagid N, Banda J, Mavodza C, Doyle AM, Bonell C, Weiss HA. Remote data collection for public health research in a COVID-19 era: ethical implications, challenges and opportunities. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36(3):360–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa158

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Grow A, Perrotta D, Del Fava E, Cimentada J, Rampazzo F, Gil-Clavel S, Zagheni E. Addressing Public Health Emergencies via Facebook Surveys: advantages, challenges, and practical considerations. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e20653. https://doi.org/10.2196/20653

Akpata ES. Oral health in Nigeria. Int Dent J. 2004;54(6 Suppl 1):361–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595x.2004.tb00012.x

Adeniyi AA, Sofola OO, Kalliecharan RV. An appraisal of the oral health system in Nigeria. Int Dent J. 2012;62(6):292–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.2012.00122.x

Azodo CC, Inegbenosun H. Is oral health literacy a predictor of periodontal health knowledge, subjectively rated periodontal status, oral self-care behaviour and dental attendance? Nig J Med Dent Educ. 2019;1(12):45–52.

Azodo CC, Umoh AO. Association between oral health literacy and dental anxiety among dental outpatients. Nig J Med Dent Educ. 2019;1(12):8–13.

Afolabi AA. Association between oral health literacy and the self-reported oral health status of undergraduate medical and dental students in Nigeria. Thesis presented to the Faculty of Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife in partial fulfillment of the BChD. 2023.

Levin L, Shpigel I, Peretz B. The use of a self-report questionnaire for dental health status assessment: a preliminary study. Br Dent J. 2013;214(5):E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.224

Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. Content validity index in scale development. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2012;37(2):152–5.

El Tantawi M, Folayan MO, Nguyen AL, Aly NM, Ezechi O, Uzochukwu BSC, Alaba OA, Brown B. Validation of a COVID-19 mental health and wellness survey questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1509. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13825-2

Hays RD, Revicki DA. Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). Assess Qual life Clin Trials. 2005;2:25–39.

Article   Google Scholar  

Oyetola EO, Oyewole T, Adedigba M, Aregbesola ST, Umezudike K, Adewale A. Knowledge and awareness of medical doctors, medical students and nurses about dentistry in Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;23:172.

Baskaradoss JK. The association between oral health literacy and missed dental appointments. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(11):867–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2016.05.011

Revicki D. Internal consistency reliability. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1494

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Prince M. Measurement validity in cross-cultural comparative research. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2008 Jul-Sep;17(3):211–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1121189x00001305

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Buhlin K, Gustafsson A, Andersson K, Hakansson J, Klinge B. Validity and limitations of self-reported periodontal health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:431–7.

Pitiphat W, Garcia RI, Douglass CW, Joshipura KJ. Validation of self-reported oral health measures. J Public Health Dent. 2002;62:122–8.

Douglass CW, Berlin J, Tennstedt S. The validity of self-reported oral health status in the elderly. J Public Health Dent. 1991;51:220–2.

Matsui D, Yamamoto T, Nishigaki M, Miyatani F, Watanabe I, Koyama T, Ozaki E, Kuriyama N, Kanamura N, Watanabe Y. Validity of self-reported number of teeth and oral health variables. BMC Oral Health. 2016;17(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0248-2

Olusile AO, Adeniyi AA, Orebanjo O. Self-rated oral health status, oral health service utilization, and oral hygiene practices among adult nigerians. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-140

Ibigbami OI, Folayan MO, Oginni O, Lusher J, Sam-Agudu NA. Moderating effects of resilience and self-esteem on associations between self-reported oral health problems, quality of oral health, and mental health among adolescents and adults in Nigeria. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(5):e0285521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285521

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bowling A. Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(5):342–5. pmid:15831678.

Horowitz AM, Kleinman DV. Oral health literacy: a pathway to reducing oral health disparities in Maryland. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(Suppl 1):S26–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2012.00316.x

Batista MJ, Lawrence HP, Sousa MDLR. Oral health literacy and oral health outcomes in an adult population in Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2017;18(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4443-0 . Erratum in: BMC Public Health. 2017;17 (1):736. Erratum in: BMC Public Health. 2017;17 (1):821.

Oyetola EO, Okunola IE, Adedigba MA, Nwhator SO, Soyele OO, Fadeju AD, et al. Oral health practices and oral hygiene status of undergraduate students at Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Niger J Health Sci. 2016;16:76–81.

Kumar S. Oral hygiene awareness among two non professional college students in Chennai, India – A pilot study. Adv Life Sci Technol. 2012;5:31–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all participants who contributed to the data generated. We also acknowledge the support provided by Dr Ibigbami who conducted part of the statistical analysis for this study.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Abayomi Abdul-Afeez Afolabi

Faculty of Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Adetomiwa Oluwanifemi Afolabi

Department of Child Dental Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A-A. A. and M.O.F.; methodology, A.A-A. A. and M.O.F.; validation, A.A-A. A. and M.O.F.; formal analysis, A.A-A. A. and A.O.A.; data curation, A.A-A. A. and M.O.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.O.F; writing—review and editing, A.A-A. A.; A.O.A.; and M.O.F.; supervision, M.O.F.; project administration, M.O.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Health Research Ethics Committee of the Obafemi Awolowo University’s Institute of Public Health (IPH/OAU/12/2024). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan is a Senior Editor Board members with BMC Oral Health. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Afolabi, A.AA., Afolabi, A.O. & Foláyan, M.O. Validation of an online version of the rapid estimate of adult literacy in dentistry-30 for use by medical and dental students in Nigeria. BMC Oral Health 24 , 485 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04238-1

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2023

Accepted : 08 April 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04238-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Oral health literacy
• Self-reported oral health status
• Medical and dental undergraduates

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Curiosity Rover Science

Landing at Gale Crater, Mars Science Laboratory is assessing whether Mars ever had an environment capable of supporting microbial life. Determining past habitability on Mars gives NASA and the scientific community a better understanding of whether life could have existed on the Red Planet and, if it could have existed, an idea of where to look for it in the future.

Science Objectives

To contribute to the four Mars exploration science goals and meet its specific goal of determining Mars' habitability, Curiosity has the following science objectives:

Biological objectives

Geological and geochemical objectives, planetary process objectives, surface radiation objective.

1. Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds 2. Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur) 3. Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes

1. Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials 2. Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils

1. Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) atmospheric evolution processes 2. Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide

Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic cosmic radiation, solar proton events, and secondary neutrons

Science Highlights

With over a decade of exploration, Curiosity has unveiled the keys to some of science's most unanswered questions about Mars. Did Mars ever have the right environmental conditions to support small life forms called microbes? Early in its mission, Curiosity's scientific tools found chemical and mineral evidence of past habitable environments on Mars. It continues to explore the rock record from a time when Mars could have been home to microbial life.

Science Instruments

From cameras to environmental and atmospheric sensors, the Curiosity rover has a suite of state-of-the-art science instruments to achieve its goals.

Discover More Topics From NASA

James Webb Space Telescope

Perseverance Rover

Parker Solar Probe