Health Activation Scale for Children

📜
Abstract

The concept of health activation—defined as the knowledge, skills, and confidence required to manage one's own health—has historically been applied to adult populations, particularly in the context of chronic disease management. However, the foundational behaviors that dictate lifelong health trajectories are established much earlier, during childhood. The health activation Scale for children (HAS-C) is a novel psychometric instrument designed specifically to capture this construct in pediatric populations. Developed to address the lack of age-appropriate measurement tools, the HAS-C evaluates how primary school-aged children perceive their role in maintaining their health, their self-efficacy in making healthy choices, and their willingness to adopt positive behaviors.

By shifting the focus from adult-centric disease management to child-centric health promotion, this scale provides researchers and public health professionals with a critical intermediate outcome measure. It allows for the rigorous evaluation of school-based health interventions, moving beyond simple knowledge acquisition to assess actual behavioral readiness. The instrument's development represents a significant advancement in pediatric health psychology, offering a validated method to quantify a child's emerging autonomy in health-related decision-making.

🏷
Keywords
health activation
children
psychometrics
health promotion
scale development
Pediatric Health
self-efficacy

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
12
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.84
Fit Index (CFI)
0.968
Validation Country
📍 Singapore

Authors

👤 Lixia Ge
✉ [email protected]

👤 Joseph Molina

👤 Ramakrishnan Karthigayan

👤 Hui Ting Foo

👤 Marcus Tang

👤 Rochelle Chua

👤 Chin Fung Ong

Purpose

Prior to the development of the HAS-C, researchers attempting to measure health activation in younger populations were forced to rely on instruments designed for adults, such as the Patient Activation Measure. These adult-focused tools are fundamentally mismatched for pediatric use because they assume a level of medical complexity, independent decision-making, and chronic illness management that does not apply to the typical primary school student. children are generally healthy and operate within the constraints of parental authority, yet they still exercise daily micro-choices regarding diet, physical activity, and sleep.

The HAS-C fills this critical methodological gap by providing a developmentally appropriate tool tailored to the cognitive and social realities of children aged 8 to 12. For clinicians and researchers, this scale is invaluable for evaluating the efficacy of health education programs. Instead of merely asking if a child learned a health fact, the HAS-C allows evaluators to determine if the child feels empowered and motivated to act on that knowledge, thereby serving as a vital bridge between health literacy and actual behavioral change.

Construct

health activation in the pediatric context is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that captures a child's readiness to engage in health-promoting behaviors. Unlike adult models that heavily emphasize navigating healthcare systems, the pediatric framework focuses on daily lifestyle choices. The HAS-C operationalizes this through three distinct but interrelated dimensions: Health Beliefs, Behavioural Confidence, and Intention for Action.

The 'Health Beliefs' dimension assesses the extent to which a child values their health and recognizes the importance of proactive self-care. 'Behavioural Confidence' taps into the domain of self-efficacy, measuring the child's perceived ability to execute healthy choices, such as opting for nutritious foods or engaging in physical activity, even when faced with alternatives. Finally, 'Intention for Action' captures the motivational aspect, reflecting the child's willingness to actively learn about and implement health-promoting behaviors. Together, these dimensions form a comprehensive profile of a child's emerging health autonomy.

Validity

The validation process for the HAS-C rigorously examined its structural integrity to ensure it accurately captures the intended psychological constructs. Construct validity was primarily established through comprehensive factor analytic techniques, which confirmed that the theoretical dimensions of health activation mapped cleanly onto the observed data. The researchers initially hypothesized a broader structure that included 'perceived knowledge,' but empirical testing revealed that knowledge items cross-loaded significantly with beliefs and confidence, leading to a more refined and theoretically sound three-factor model.

The final structural model demonstrated excellent fit to the data, indicating strong construct validity. Confirmatory analyses yielded highly favorable fit indices, including a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.968 and a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.954, both well above the conventional threshold of 0.95 for excellent fit. Additionally, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.044, further supporting the scale's structural validity. These metrics provide robust evidence that the HAS-C reliably measures the distinct facets of pediatric health activation it was designed to assess.

Reliability

Reliability analyses of the HAS-C indicate that the instrument possesses strong internal consistency, making it a dependable tool for research applications. The overall scale demonstrated a commendable Cronbach's alpha of 0.844, which comfortably exceeds the standard psychometric threshold of 0.80 for good reliability. This suggests that the 12 items function cohesively to measure the overarching construct of pediatric health activation.

At the subscale level, the internal consistency remained adequate for research purposes, though slightly lower due to the reduced number of items per factor (four items each). The 'Intention for Action' and 'Health Beliefs' dimensions yielded alpha coefficients of 0.753 and 0.732, respectively. The 'Behavioural Confidence' subscale produced an alpha of 0.698, which borders the widely accepted 0.70 cutoff. Given the developmental stage of the target population and the brevity of the subscales, these reliability metrics are highly satisfactory and indicate that the HAS-C can consistently capture variance in children's health activation levels.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the HAS-C was derived through a meticulous, iterative process of exploratory and confirmatory techniques. Initially, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on a 21-item pool. This initial extraction revealed significant cross-loadings, particularly concerning items intended to measure 'perceived knowledge,' which failed to form a distinct, interpretable factor. By systematically removing items that lacked theoretical alignment or exhibited poor loading patterns, the researchers distilled the instrument down to a clean, 12-item structure.

A subsequent EFA using Promax rotation on these 12 items successfully extracted three distinct factors, with four unique items loading strongly onto each. This structure was then subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), which provided strong empirical support for the three-dimensional model. The CFA results showed that all items loaded significantly onto their respective latent constructs (loadings > 0.35), and the overall model fit was excellent (chi-square/df = 1.583). This rigorous analytical approach ensures that the HAS-C possesses a stable, replicable factor structure that accurately reflects the theoretical underpinnings of pediatric health activation.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Behavioural confidence 3, 4, 10, 18 Measures the child's self-efficacy and confidence in their ability to make healthy choices and ask health-related questions.
Intention for action 5, 8, 11, 21 Assesses the child's willingness and motivation to adopt healthy behaviors and learn more about maintaining their health.
Health beliefs 12, 13, 14, 15 Evaluates the child's internal valuation of their health and their belief in the importance of personal responsibility for health maintenance.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 12 items, 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
Scoring Items are summed or averaged to yield subscale and total scores. Higher scores indicate greater levels of health activation.
Language English
Population children
Age Group 8-12 years
Administration Self-administered

Health Activation Scale for Children Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

Primary school students aged 8 to 12 years in Singapore. The sample was roughly evenly split by gender (50.1% boys) and predominantly of Chinese ethnicity (64.8%), followed by Malay (14.7%) and Indian (9.2%).

📄
Cite This Paper

Lixia Ge, Joseph Molina, Ramakrishnan Karthigayan, Hui Ting Foo, Marcus Tang, Rochelle Chua, Chin Fung Ong (2024). health activation Scale for children. BMC health services research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11526-7

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
46 references
  1. Mikkilä V, Räsänen L, Raitakari OT, Pietinen P, Viikari J. Consistent dietary patterns identified from childhood to adulthood: the cardiovascular risk in Young finns Study. Br J Nutr. 2005;93:923–31. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20051418
  2. Telama R. Tracking of physical activity from childhood to adulthood: a review. Obes Facts. 2009;2:187–95. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1159/000222244
  3. Thorp AA, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW. Sedentary behaviors and subsequent health outcomes in adults a systematic review of longitudinal studies, 1996–2011. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:207–15. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.004
  4. Hilliard ME, Riekert KA, Ockene JK, Pbert L. The handbook of health behavior change. Fifth. Springer Publishing Company; 2018. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826180148
  5. Chaput J-P, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Carson V, Gruber R, Olds T, et al. Systematic review of the relationships between sleep duration and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6 Suppl 3):S266–282. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0627
  6. Public Health England. How healthy behaviour supports children’s wellbeing. England: Public Health England; 2013.
  7. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, Vish, editors. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice. 5th edition. Hoboken, NJ, US: Jossey-Bass/Wiley; 2015.
  8. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff. 2013;32:207–14. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
  9. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918–30. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x
  10. Buford TA. Transfer of asthma management responsibility from parents to their school-age children. J Pediatr Nurs. 2004;19:3–12. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2003.09.002
  11. Ramdzan SN, Khoo EM, Liew SM, Cunningham S, Kendall M, Sukri N, et al. How young children learn independent asthma self-management: a qualitative study in Malaysia. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105:819–24. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-318127
  12. Goldman SL, Whitney-Saltiel D, Granger J, Rodin J. children’s representations of everyday aspects of health and illness. J Pediatr Psychol. 1991;16:747–66. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/16.6.747
  13. Natapoff JN. A developmental analysis of children’s ideas of health. Health Educ Q. 1982;9:34–45. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818200900205
  14. Piko BF, Bak J. children’s perceptions of health and illness: images and lay concepts in preadolescence. Health Educ Res. 2006;21:643–53. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl034
  15. Catarino M, Charepe Z, Festas C. Promotion of Self-Management of Chronic Disease in children and teenagers. Scoping Rev Healthc (Basel). 2021;9:1642.
  16. Borzekowski DLG. Considering children and health literacy: a theoretical approach. Pediatrics. 2009;124 Supplement:S282–8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1162D
  17. DeWalt DA, Hink A. Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Pediatrics. 2009;124(Suppl 3):S265–274. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1162B
  18. Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Bailey SC, Wolf MS. The mechanisms linking health literacy to behavior and health status. Am J Health Behav. 2011;35:118–28. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.35.1.11
  19. Hibbard JH. Patient activation and the use of information to support informed health decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:5–7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.006
  20. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–26. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x
  21. Ge L, Kaur P, Yap CW, Heng BH. Psychometric properties of the patient activation measure in community-dwelling adults in Singapore. Inquiry. 2022;59:469580221100781. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580221100781
  22. Graffigna G, Barello S. Spotlight on the Patient Health Engagement model (PHE model): a psychosocial theory to understand people’s meaningful engagement in their own health care. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1261–71. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S145646
  23. Wolf MS, Smith SG, Pandit AU, Condon DM, Curtis LM, Griffith J, et al. Development and validation of the Consumer health activation Index. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38:334–43. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17753392
  24. Castellon-Lopez Y, Skrine Jeffers K, Duru OK, Moreno G, Moin T, Grotts J, et al. Psychometric properties of the Altarum Consumer Engagement (ACE) measure of activation in patients with prediabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:3159–65. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05727-z
  25. Ge L, Yap CW, Kaur P, Ong R, Heng BH. Psychometric evaluation of the 8-item Altarum Consumer Engagement (ACE) Measure™ in community-dwelling adults in Singapore. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1347. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07369-1
  26. De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, Anis AH, Fitzgerald MJ, Marra CA. Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23:659–85. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523070-00003
  27. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  28. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30:459–67. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
  29. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5:159–68. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
  30. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–19. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  31. DeVellis RF. scale development: theory and applications. 2nd edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 2003.
  32. Myers N. Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: a Monte Carlo approach. rqes. 2011;82. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5641/027013611X13275191443621
  33. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assess Res Evaluation. 2005;10:9.
  34. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6:1–55. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  35. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
  36. Benson T, Potts HWW, Bark P, Bowman C. Development and initial testing of a Health confidence score (HCS). BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8:e000411. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000411
  37. Lassetter J, Macintosh C, Williams M, Driessnack M, Ray G, Wisco J. Psychometric testing of the healthy eating and physical activity self-efficacy questionnaire and the healthy eating and physical activity behavior recall questionnaire for children. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2018;23:e12207. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jspn.12207
  38. NSW Health. The New South Wales School Students Health Behaviours Survey – 2017 Questionnaire. NSW Health. 2017. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/surveys/student/Documents/student-health-survey-2017-quest.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2024.
  39. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882
  40. Greene J, Hibbard JH. Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:520–6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1931-2
  41. Pinkosova Z, McGeown WJ, Moshfeghi Y. Moderating effects of self-perceived knowledge in a relevance assessment task: an EEG study. Computers Hum Behav Rep. 2023;11:100295. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100295
  42. Feng Y, Hancock GR, Harring JR. Latent growth models with floors, ceilings, and random knots. Multivar Behav Res. 2019;54:751–70. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1580556
  43. Badejo MA, Ramtin S, Rossano A, Ring D, Koenig K, Crijns TJ. Does adjusting for social desirability reduce ceiling effects and increase variation of patient-reported experience measures? J Patient Experience. 2022;9:23743735221079144. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735221079144
  44. Bornstein MH, Jager J, Putnick DL. Sampling in developmental science: situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Dev Rev. 2013;33:357–70. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003
  45. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012
  46. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2015. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Health Activation Scale for Children. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/health-activation-scale-for-children/

Mohammed looti. "Health Activation Scale for Children." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 13 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/health-activation-scale-for-children/.

Mohammed looti. "Health Activation Scale for Children." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/health-activation-scale-for-children/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Health Activation Scale for Children', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/health-activation-scale-for-children/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Health Activation Scale for Children," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Health Activation Scale for Children. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS)
  2. Questionnaire of Cognitive Schema Activation in Sexual Context
  3. Children’s Health Locus of Control Scale
  4. Behaviors of Eating and Activity for Children’s Health: Evaluation System (BEACHES)
  5. Nurses’ attitudes towards physical health care of psychiatric patients scale
  6. Adolescent Sleep Health Belief Scale
  7. Environmental Acculturative Stress Scale (SAFE) Scale for Children
  8. Perceived Access to Health Care Questionnaire
  9. Non-Heterosexist Mental Health Organizational Climate Scale (NHMHOCS)
  10. Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top