Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test: A Brief Subjective Assessment
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin
(2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012512 · Cited by 19,011 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The fourth graph reported the results of a diabetes prevention program.(43) The Ethics Committee of the Michigan Technological University approved the study.”
BackgroundWeight gain as a risk factor for clinical diabetes mellitus in women
Colditz, G. A., Willett, W. C., Rotnitzky, A., & Manson, J. E. (1995) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-122-7-199504010-00001 · Cited by 2,064 · see citing works
Obesity, Fat Distribution, and Weight Gain as Risk Factors for Clinical Diabetes in Men
Chan, J. M., Rimm, E. B., Colditz, G. A., Stampfer, M. J., & Willett, W. C. (1994) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.17.9.961 · Cited by 1,808 · see citing works
Individual differences in adult decision-making competence.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future
Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., & Short, I. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1191181 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Visualizing Uncertainty to Promote Clinicians’ Understanding of Measurement Error
Frans, N., Hummelen, B., Albers, C. J., & Paap, M. C. S. (2023) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911221147042 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“The Subjective Graph Literacy scale (SGL; Garcia-Retamero et al., 2016) was administered to measure the participant’s graph literacy skills.”
Method
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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