Cited by 353Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations

Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J., Smith, Dylan M., Ubel, Peter A., Fagerlin, Angela·2007·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Background In a companion article, the authors describe the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), a self-assessment of numerical aptitude and preferences for numbers that correlates strongly with objective numeracy. Objective The objective of this article is to validate the Subjective Numeracy Scale using measures of subjects' capacity to recall and comprehend complex risk statistics and to complete utility elicitations. Research design The study is composed of 3 general public surveys: 2 administered via the Web and 1 by paper and pencil. Subjects. Studies 1 and 3 surveyed 862 and 1234 people, respectively, recruited via a nationwide commercial Internet survey panel. Study 2 involved 245 people who completed paper-and-pencil surveys in a Veterans Administration hospital. Measures The authors tested whether one's score on the SNS predicted the likelihood of correct recall and interpretation of risk information (studies 1 and 2A) or the likelihood of effectively completing a time tradeoff or person-tradeoff utility elicitation (studies 2B and 3). In Studies 1 and 2, the authors also tested whether an objective test of quantitative ability would predict performance. Results In all studies, survey participants with higher SNS scores performed significantly better than other respondents. The predictive ability of the SNS approached that observed for objective numeracy. Conclusions The SNS effectively predicts both risk comprehension and completion of utility elicitations without requi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x07303824

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Smith, D. M., Ubel, P. A., & Fagerlin, A.
Affiliations
  • VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
  • University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2007-09
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
663-671
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2126556941
Cited by
353
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA087595, P50CA101451, R01 CA87595)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
numeracy, risk understanding, risk communication, utility elicitation, time trade-off, scale validation, health decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Decision Making, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Risk Assessment, Health Care Surveys, Comprehension

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