Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach

Open access
Weller, Joshua A., Dieckmann, Nathan F., Tusler, Martin, Mertz, C. K., Burns, William J., Peters, Ellen·2013·Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that individual differences in numeracy may have important consequences for decision making. In the present paper, we develop a shorter, psychometrically improved measure of numeracy—the ability to understand, manipulate, and use numerical information, including probabilities. Across two large independent samples that varied widely in age and educational level, participants completed 18 items from existing numeracy measures. In Study 1, we conducted a Rasch analysis on the item pool and created an eight‐item numeracy scale that assesses a broader range of difficulty than previous scales. In Study 2, we replicated this eight‐item scale in a separate Rasch analysis using data from an independent sample. We also found that the new Rasch‐based numeracy scale, compared with previous measures, could predict decision‐making preferences obtained in past studies, supporting its predictive validity. In Study, 3, we further established the predictive validity of the Rasch‐based numeracy scale. Specifically, we examined the associations between numeracy and risk judgments, compared with previous scales. Overall, we found that the Rasch‐based scale was a better linear predictor of risk judgments than prior measures. Moreover, this study is the first to present the psychometric properties of several popular numeracy measures across a diverse sample of ages and educational level. We discuss the usefulness and the advantages of the new scale, which we feel can be used in a wide range of subject populations, allowing for a more clear understanding of how numeracy is associated with decision processes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdm.1751

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. J., & Peters, E.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-15
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
198-212
ISSN
  • 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0771
OpenAlex
W2163662064
Cited by
392
References
16
FWCI
18.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdm.1751
The paper
Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. J., & Peters, E. (2013). Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1751

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.