Objective: To describe the relationship between adherence to distinct dietary patterns and nutrition literacy.Design: We identified distinct dietary patterns using principal covariates regression (PCovR) and principal components analysis (PCA) from the Diet History Questionnaire II. Nutrition literacy was assessed using the Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument (NLit). Cross-sectional relationships between dietary pattern adherence and global and domain-specific NLit scores were tested by multiple linear regression. Mean differences in diet pattern adherence among three predefined nutrition literacy performance categories were tested by ANOVA.Setting: Metropolitan Kansas City, USA.Participants: Adults (n 386) with at least one of four diet-related diseases.Results: Three diet patterns of interest were derived: a PCovR prudent pattern and PCA-derived Western and Mediterranean patterns. After controlling for age, sex, BMI, race, household income, education level and diabetes status, PCovR prudent pattern adherence positively related to global NLit score (P < 0·001, β = 0·36), indicating more intake of prudent diet foods with improved nutrition literacy. Validating the PCovR findings, PCA Western pattern adherence inversely related to global NLit (P = 0·003, β = −0·13) while PCA Mediterranean pattern positively related to global NLit (P = 0·02, β = 0·12). Using predefined cut points, those with poor nutrition literacy consumed more foods associated with the Western diet (fried foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, red meat, processed foods) while those with good nutrition literacy consumed more foods associated with prudent and Mediterranean diets (vegetables, olive oil, nuts).Conclusions: Nutrition literacy predicted adherence to healthy/unhealthy diet patterns. These findings warrant future research to determine if improving nutrition literacy effectively improves eating patterns.

Identification of low levels of health literacy is important for effective communication between providers and clients. Assessment instruments for general health literacy are inadequate for use in nutrition education encounters because they do not identify nutrition literacy. The primary objective of this 2-part study was to assess content validity for the Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument (NLAI). This study included a 35-item online survey of registered dietitians (134 of whom answered all questions) and a pilot study in which 5 registered dietitians used the NLAI among 26 clients during nutrition education consultations. To assess agreement with the NLAI by survey participants, we used the following scale: "necessary" (70% agreement), "adequate" (80% agreement), or "good" (90% agreement); comments were analyzed by using content analysis. For the pilot, we made comparisons between subjective assessments, the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), and the NLAI. Registered dietitians also completed a postpilot-study survey. For the online survey, we found good agreement (average, 89.7%) for including each section of the NLAI. All sections accomplished their purpose (average, 81.5%). For the pilot, REALM and NLAI correlation (r = 0.38) was not significant; the subjective assessment of clients by dietitians and NLAI lacked agreement 44% of the time, and registered dietitians provided instruction on deficient knowledge and skills identified by the NLAI 90% of the time. The NLAI is a content-valid measure of nutrition literacy. Additional validation of the NLAI is important because an objective instrument is needed for identifying nutrition literacy, a construct that appears to be different from health literacy.