IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i5p663-671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (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, bzikmund@umich.edu)

  • Dylan M. Smith

    (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)

  • Peter A. Ubel

    (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, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)

  • Angela Fagerlin

    (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)

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 requiring survey participants to complete time-consuming and stress-inducing mathematics tests. The authors encourage the use of the SNS in a variety of health services research contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:663-671
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07303824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07303824
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07303824?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    2. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    3. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    4. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    5. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    6. Magnus Johannesson, 2001. "Should we aggregate relative or absolute changes in QALYs?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 573-577, October.
    7. Francis Asenso‐Boadi & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2008. "Exploring differences in empirical time preference rates for health: an application of meta‐regression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 235-248, February.
    8. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    9. Duncan Mortimer, 2006. "The Value of Thinly Spread QALYs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 845-853, September.
    10. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Mansdotter, Anna & Lindholm, Lars & Ohman, Ann, 2004. "Women, men and public health--how the choice of normative theory affects resource allocation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 351-364, September.
    12. Colin Green, 2001. "On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade‐off technique?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 233-243, April.
    13. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    14. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    15. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    16. Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis & Loomes, Graham & Brey, Raul, 2009. "Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 553-562, May.
    17. Laura J. Damschroder & Jonathan Baron & John C. Hershey & David A. Asch & Christopher Jepson & Peter A. Ubel, 2004. "The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation Versus Face-to-Face Interview," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 170-180, March.
    18. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2006. "Multi‐method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 215-218, February.
    19. Edlin, Richard, 2004. "Anti-social welfare functions: a reply to Hansen et al," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 899-905, September.
    20. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.

    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:27:y:2007:i:5:p:663-671. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.