Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 745

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 136 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test

Open access
Cokely, Edward T., Galesic, Mirta, Schulz, Eric, Ghazal, Saima, Garcia-Retamero, Rocio·2012·Judgment and Decision Making

Abstract

We introduce the Berlin Numeracy Test, a new psychometrically sound instrument that quickly assesses statistical numeracy and risk literacy. We present 21 studies (n=5336) showing robust psychometric discriminability across 15 countries (e.g., Germany, Pakistan, Japan, USA) and diverse samples (e.g., medical professionals, general populations, Mechanical Turk web panels). Analyses demonstrate desirable patterns of convergent validity (e.g., numeracy, general cognitive abilities), discriminant validity (e.g., personality, motivation), and criterion validity (e.g., numerical and non-numerical questions about risk). The Berlin Numeracy Test was found to be the strongest predictor of comprehension of everyday risks (e.g., evaluating claims about products and treatments; interpreting forecasts), doubling the predictive power of other numeracy instruments and accounting for unique variance beyond other cognitive tests (e.g., cognitive reflection, working memory, intelligence). The Berlin Numeracy Test typically takes about three minutes to complete and is available in multiple languages and formats, including a computer adaptive test that automatically scores and reports data to researchers (http://www.riskliteracy.org). The online forum also provides interactive content for public outreach and education, and offers a recommendation system for test format selection. Discussion centers on construct validity of numeracy for risk literacy, underlying cognitive mechanisms, and applications in adaptive decision support.

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 · 10.1017/s1930297500001819

Cites

136 of 136 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

1 retracted

Show all 136 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · Paper page
  2. Sherrod, P. H. (2003). DTREG: Predictive Modeling Software . Software available at http://dx.doi.org/http://www.dtreg.com.
  3. 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684 · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.684 · Paper page
  4. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.23 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.23 · Paper page
  5. Cokely, 2009, Beyond generic dual processes: How should we evaluate scientific progress?, PsycCritiques, 54
  6. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.391 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.391
  7. 10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.207 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.207 · Paper page
  8. 10.1037/0096-3445.116.3.250 · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.3.250 · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05123.x · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05123.x · Paper page
  10. Garcia-Retamero, Transparent communication of risks about health: Overcoming cultural differences.

Cited by

See all 745

Metadata

Authors
Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R.
Venue
Judgment and Decision Making
Published
2012-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
25-47
ISSN
1930-2975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142604507
Cited by
745
References
136
FWCI
31.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1930297500001819
The paper
Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500001819

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.