Measuring Nutrition and Food Literacy in Adults: A Systematic Review and Appraisal of Existing Measurement Tools

BACKGROUND: Nutrition literacy (NL) and food literacy (FL) have emerged as key components in the promotion and maintenance of healthy dietary practices. However, a critical appraisal of existing tools is required to advance the operationalization and measurement of these constructs using instruments that demonstrate sound validity and reliability. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in January and July 2016, January 2017, and March 2018 for publications detailing the development and/or testing of NL or FL instruments. Instruments' psychometric properties were assessed using a structured methodological framework. We identified 2,563 new titles and abstracts, and short-listed 524 for full review. The extent to which key domains of NL were included in each measure was examined. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen instruments assessing NL underwent full evaluation; seven from the United States, and one each from Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, Hong Kong, and Japan. Measures targeted general Spanish-, Italian-, or Cantonese-speaking adults; primary care patients, parent, and populations with breast cancer. Instruments ranged from 6 to 64 items, and they predominantly assessed functional NL rather than broader domains of NL. Substantial variation in methodological rigor was observed across measures. DISCUSSION: Multidimensional and psychometrically sound measures that capture broader domains of NL and assess FL are needed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This review systemically compiles, and critically appraises 13 existing measures that assess nutrition literacy and food literacy in an adult population. Substantial variation in methodological rigor was found across the measures, and most tools assessed nutrition literacy rather than food literacy. Findings from this current review may be useful to guide development of future measures that comprehensively capture nutrition literacy and food literacy. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2018;2(3):e134–e160.]