IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i5p560-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Standard Rating Scale and the Magnifier Scale for Assessing Risk Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea D. Gurmankin

    (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Smith 253, Boston, MA; Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Center for Community Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusettsandrea_gurmankin@dfci.harvard.edu.)

  • Marie Helweg-Larsen

    (Department of Psychology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania)

  • Katrina Armstrong

    (Abramson Cancer Center, the Department of Medicine, and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia)

  • Stephen E. Kimmel

    (Department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology and the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia)

  • Kevin G. M. Volpp

    (Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Objective. A new risk perception rating scale (“magnifier scale†) was recently developed to reduce elevated perceptions of low-probability health events, but little is known about its performance. The authors tested whether the magnifier scale lowers risk perceptions for low-probability (in 0%–1% magnifying glass section of scale) but not high-probability (>1%) events compared to a standard rating scale (SRS). Method. In studies 1 (n = 463) and 2 (n = 105), undergraduates completed a survey assessing risk perceptions of high- and low-probability events in a randomized 2X 2 design: in study 1 using the magnifier scale or SRS, numeric risk information provided or not, and in study 2 using the magnifier scale or SRS, high- or low-probability event. In study 3, hypertension patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs hospital completed a similar survey (n = 222) assessing risk perceptions of 2 self-relevant high-probability events—heart attack and stroke—with the magnifier scale or the SRS. Results. In study 1, when no risk information was provided, risk perceptions for both high- and low-probability events were significantly lower ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea D. Gurmankin & Marie Helweg-Larsen & Katrina Armstrong & Stephen E. Kimmel & Kevin G. M. Volpp, 2005. "Comparing the Standard Rating Scale and the Magnifier Scale for Assessing Risk Perceptions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 560-570, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:560-570
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05280560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05280560
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05280560?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    3. Gillian Anderson & Lesley Walls & Matthew Revie & Euan Fenelon & Calum Storie, 2015. "Quantifying intra-organisational risks: An analysis of practice-theory tensions in probability elicitation to improve technical risk management in an energy utility," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 229(3), pages 171-180, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:560-570. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.