The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples
Abstract
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 latter 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. 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.
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
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Cited by
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors
Fernandes, D., Lynch, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849 · Cited by 2,152
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-44
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2100026878
- Cited by
- 1,497
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x0102100105
- The paper
- Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x0102100105
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.