General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples

被引:1058
作者
Lipkus, IM
Samsa, G
Rimer, BK
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Canc Prevent Detect & Control Res Program, Dept Psychiat & Behav Sci, Durham, NC 27701 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Community & Family Med, Durham, NC 27701 USA
[3] NCI, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
risk; numeracy; communication;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X0102100105
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Numeracy, how facile people are with basic probability and mathematical concepts, is associated with how people perceive health risks. Performance on simple numeracy problems has been poor among populations with little as well as more formal education. Here, we examine how highly educated participants performed on a general and an expanded numeracy scale. The letter was designed within the context of health risks. Method. A total of 463 men and women aged 40 and older completed a 3-item general and an expanded 7-item numeracy scale. The expanded scale assessed how well people 1) differentiate and perform simple mathematical operations on risk magnitudes using percentages and proportions, 2) convert percentages to proportions, 3) convert proportions to percentages, and 4) convert probabilities to proportions. Results. On average, 18% and 32% of participants correctly answered all of the general and expanded numeracy scale items, respectively. Approximately 16% to 20% incorrectly answered the most straightforward questions pertaining to risk magnitudes (e.g., Which represents the larger risk: 1%, 5%, or 10%?). A factor analysis revealed that the general and expanded risk numeracy items tapped the construct of global numeracy. Conclusions. These results suggest that even highly educated participants have difficulty with relatively simple numeracy questions, thus replicating in part earlier studies. The implication is that usual strategies for communicating numerical risk may be flawed. Methods and consequences of communicating health risk information tailored to a person's level of numeracy should be explored further.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 44
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health information talks [J].
Adelsward, V ;
Sachs, L .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1996, 43 (08) :1179-1187
[2]   PERCEPTIONS OF BREAST-CANCER RISK AND SCREENING EFFECTIVENESS IN WOMEN YOUNGER THAN 50 YEARS OF AGE [J].
BLACK, WC ;
NEASE, RF ;
TOSTESON, ANA .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1995, 87 (10) :720-731
[3]   MARGINAL MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF ITEM PARAMETERS - APPLICATION OF AN EM ALGORITHM [J].
BOCK, RD ;
AITKIN, M .
PSYCHOMETRIKA, 1981, 46 (04) :443-459
[4]   FULL-INFORMATION ITEM FACTOR-ANALYSIS [J].
BOCK, RD ;
GIBBONS, R ;
MURAKI, E .
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1988, 12 (03) :261-280
[5]   Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango) [J].
Charles, C ;
Gafni, A ;
Whelan, T .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1997, 44 (05) :681-692
[6]   MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD FROM INCOMPLETE DATA VIA EM ALGORITHM [J].
DEMPSTER, AP ;
LAIRD, NM ;
RUBIN, DB .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-METHODOLOGICAL, 1977, 39 (01) :1-38
[7]   RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION UNPLUGGED - 20 YEARS OF PROCESS [J].
FISCHHOFF, B .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1995, 15 (02) :137-145
[8]   Shared decision making in clinical medicine: Past research and future directions [J].
Frosch, DL ;
Kaplan, RM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 1999, 17 (04) :285-294
[9]   Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization [J].
Gazmararian, JA ;
Baker, DW ;
Williams, MV ;
Parker, RM ;
Scott, TL ;
Green, DC ;
Fehrenbach, SN ;
Ren, JL ;
Koplan, JP .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 281 (06) :545-551
[10]   HOW TO IMPROVE BAYESIAN REASONING WITHOUT INSTRUCTION - FREQUENCY FORMATS [J].
GIGERENZER, G ;
HOFFRAGE, U .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1995, 102 (04) :684-704