Mapping literacies: Comparing information horizons mapping to measures of information and health literacy

Abstract

Purpose

Information literacy and health literacy skills are positively correlated with indicators of quality of life. Assessing these literacies, however, can be daunting – particularly with people that may not respond well to prose-based tools. The purpose of this paper is to use information horizons methodology as a metric that may be reflective of literacies.

Design/methodology/approach

Following a power analysis to insure statistical significance, a sample of 161 participants was recruited from a university population and given formal, vetted measures of information literacy and health literacy and then was asked to create an information horizons map within a health-related context. The information horizons maps were evaluated in two different ways. First, the number of sources was counted. Then, the quality of sources was factored in. Multiple regression analysis was applied to both metrics as independent variables with the other assessments as dependent variables. Anker, Reinhart, and Feeley’s model provided the conceptual framework for the study.

Findings

Information horizons mapping was not found to have a significant relationship with measures of information literacy. However, there were strong, statistically significant relationships with the measures of health literacy employed in this study.

Originality/value

Employing information horizons methodology as a means of providing a metric to assess literacies may be helpful in providing a more complete picture of a person’s abilities. While the current assessment tools have value, this method has the potential to provide important information about the health literacy of people who are not traditionally well represented by prose-based measures.

Citation

Zimmerman, M.S. (2020), "Mapping literacies: Comparing information horizons mapping to measures of information and health literacy", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 531-551. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2019-0090