Search

Background Parents often use digital media to search for information related to their children’s health. As the quantity and quality of digital sources meant specifically for parents expand, parents’ digital health literacy is increasingly important to process the information they retrieve. One of the earliest developed and widely used instruments to assess digital health literacy is the self-reported eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). However, the eHEALS has not been psychometrically validated in a sample of parents. Given the inconsistency of the eHEALS underlying factor structure across previous reports, it is particularly important for validation to occur. Objective This study aimed to determine the factor structure of the German eHEALS measure in a sample of parents by adopting classic and modern psychometric approaches. In particular, this study sought to identify the eHEALS validity as a unidimensional index as well as the viability for potential subscales. Methods A cross-sectional design was used across two purposive sampling frames: online and paper administrations. Responses were collected between January 2018 and May 2018 from 703 Swiss-German parents. In addition to determining the sampling characteristics, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the eHEALS by considering its ordinal structure using polychoric correlations. This analysis was performed separately for online–based and paper–based responses to examine the general factor strength of the eHEALS as a unidimensional index. Furthermore, item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted by fitting eHEALS to a bifactor model to further inspect its unidimensionality and subscale viability. Results Parents in both samples were predominantly mothers (622/703, 88.5%), highly educated (538/703, 76.9%), of Swiss nationality (489/703, 71.8%), and living with a partner (692/703, 98.4%). Factor analyses of the eHEALS indicated the presence of a strong general factor across both paper and online samples, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that the eHEALS total sum score was not significantly different between the paper and online samples (P=.12). Finally, the IRT analyses indicated negligible multidimensionality, insufficient subscale reliability after accounting for the eHEALS general factor, and a reduced subset of items that could serve as a unidimensional index of the eHEALS across the paper and online samples. Conclusions The German eHEALS evidenced good psychometric properties in a parent-specific study sample. Factor analyses indicated a strong general factor across purposively distinct sample frames (online and paper). IRT analyses validated the eHEALS as a unidimensional index while failing to find support for subscale usage.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reexamine exploration-exploitation’s reciprocality in organizational ambidexterity (OA) research. OA figures prominently in a variety of organization science phenomena. Introduced as a two-stage model for innovation, theory specifies reciprocal reinforcement between the OA processes of exploration (eR) and exploitation (eT). In this study, the authors argue that previous analyses of OA necessarily neglect this reciprocality in favor of conceptualizations that conform to common statistical techniques. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose joint-variance (JV) as a soluble estimator of exploration–exploitation (eR-eT) reciprocality. An updated systematic literature synthesis yielded K = 50 studies (53 independent samples, N = 11,743) for further testing. Findings Three primary findings are as follows: JV reduced negative confounding, explaining 45 per cent of between-study variance. JV quantified the positive confounding in separate meta-analytic estimates of eR and eT on performance because of double-counting (37.6 per cent), and substantive application of JV to hypothesis testing supported OA theoretical predictions. Research limitations/implications The authors discuss practical consideration for eR-eT reciprocality, as well as theoretical contributions for cohering the OA empirical literature. Practical implications The authors discuss design limitations and JV measurement extensions for the future. Social implications Learning in OA literature has been neglected or underestimated. Originality/value Because reciprocality is theorized, yet absent in current models, existing results represent confounded or biased evidence of the OA’s effect on firm performance. Subsequently, the authors propose JV as a soluble estimator of eR-eT learning modes.