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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 5×
“Cronbach and Meehl’s (1955) classic article first identified construct validity (i.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialConstructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19 · Cited by 3,538
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803321947001 · Cited by 1,874
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865
Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000626 · Cited by 1,470
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x · Cited by 1,180
Self-citation
Cited by
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government
KAHAN, D. M., PETERS, E., DAWSON, E. C., & SLOVIC, P. (2017) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2 · Cited by 883
Self-citationMeasuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test
Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001819 · Cited by 745
Climate‐Science Communication and the Measurement Problem
Kahan, D. M. (2015) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12244 · Cited by 559
Trevena, L. J., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P. K., King, J., Lawson, M. L., Linder, S. K., Lipkus, I., et al. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-s2-s7 · Cited by 538
Self-citation
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.