. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017 Dec 12;50(3):247–257.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.10.008

Table 3.

Validity and reliability statistics by subscale for 42 item Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument

NLit^a Subscale	Comparative Fit Index (CFI)^b	Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA)^c	Entire Reliability^d (95% Confidence Interval, CI)	Test-retest reliability (95% Confidence Intervals, CI)^e
All subscales combined	1.000^*	0.000^**	0.96 (CI: 0.95–0.96)^***	0.88 (CI: 0.85–0.90)^###
Nutrition & Health	0.995^*	0.012^**	0.81 (CI: 0.75–0.86)^***	0.58 (CI: 0.51–0.64)^#
Energy Sources in Food	0.991^*	0.033^**	0.84 (CI: 0.81–0.90)^***	0.72 (CI: 0.67–0.76)^##
Household Food Measurement	1.000^*	0.000^**	0.80 (CI: 0.69–0.86)^***	0.43 (CI: 0.35–0.51)^#
Food Label and Numeracy	1.000^*	0.000^**	0.92 (CI: 0.89–0.94)^***	0.76 (CI: 0.72–0.80)^##
Food Groups	0.924^*	0.048^**	0.94 (CI: 0.81–0.94)^***	0.58 (CI: 0.51–0.64)^#
Consumer Skills	0.925^*	0.033^**	0.75 (CI: 0.68–0.82)^**	0.66 (CI: 0.60–0.71)^##

Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument

CFI=Comparative Fit Index ≥0.90 indicate acceptable model fit*

RMSEA=Root Mean Square of Approximation ≤ 0.06 indicate acceptable model fit**

Entire reliability is the reliability of the entire domain. 0.61–0.80 is moderate reliability**, 0.81–1.0 is substantial reliability***

Test-retest reliability evaluates the consistency of measurement results between two testing occasions using Pearson’s r.

We classified reliability as follows: fair reliability^#, moderate reliability^##, and substantial reliability^### according to Shrout’s guidelines (Shrout, PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1998; 7: 301–317)