Cited by 64Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Education and Validation

Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test: A Brief Subjective Assessment

Open access
Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, Cokely, Edward T., Ghazal, Saima, Joeris, Alexander·2016·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Background. Visual aids tend to help diverse and vulnerable individuals understand risk communications, as long as these individuals have a basic understanding of graphs (i.e., graph literacy). Tests of objective graph literacy (OGL) can effectively identify individuals with limited skills, highlighting vulnerabilities and facilitating custom-tailored risk communication. However, the administration of these tests can be time-consuming and may evoke negative emotional reactions (e.g., anxiety). Objectives. To evaluate a brief and easy-to-use assessment of subjective graph literacy (SGL) (i.e., self-reported ability to process and use graphically presented information) and to estimate the robustness and validity of the SGL scale and compare it with the leading OGL scale in diverse samples from different cultures. Participants. Demographically diverse residents ( n = 470) of the United States, young adults ( n = 172) and patients (n = 175) from Spain, and surgeons ( n = 175) from 48 countries. Design. A focus group and 4 studies for instrument development and initial validation (study 1), reliability and convergent and discriminant validity evaluation (study 2), and predictive validity estimation (studies 3 and 4). Measures. Psychometric properties of the scale. Results. In about 1 minute, the SGL scale provides a reliable, robust, and valid assessment of skills and risk communication preferences and evokes fewer negative emotional reactions than the OGL scale. Conclusions. The SGL scale can be suitable for use in clinical research and may be useful as a communication aid in clinical practice. Theoretical mechanisms involved in SGL, emerging applications, limitations, and open questions are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x16655334

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The Subjective Graph Literacy scale has shown high reliability in highly educated samples (α: .70-.89), and acceptable construct validity was suggested by high item-total correlations and moderate correlations with other tests of graph literacy.

    “This 10-item self-report questionnaire has shown high reliability in highly educated samples (α: .70–.89), and acceptable construct validity was suggested by high item-total correlations, and moderate correlations with other tests of graph literacy (Garcia-Retamero et al., 2016).”

    From Visualizing Uncertainty to Promote Clinicians’ Understanding of Measurement Error (2023) · cites this paper as Garcia-Retamero et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garcia-Retamero, R., Cokely, E. T., Ghazal, S., & Joeris, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Spain (RGR)
  • University of the Punjab (PK)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2016-07-10
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
854-867
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2460774167
Cited by
64
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
FWCI
6.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1253263)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
graph literacy, risk communication, visual aids, scale development, psychometric validation, cross-cultural comparison, test anxiety, health communication, surgeons, young adults, patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Audiovisual Aids, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Spain, Reproducibility of Results, Focus Groups, Young Adult, Health Literacy

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