IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i7p854-867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test

Author

Listed:
  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero
  • Edward T. Cokely
  • Saima Ghazal
  • Alexander Joeris

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Edward T. Cokely & Saima Ghazal & Alexander Joeris, 2016. "Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 854-867, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:7:p:854-867
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16655334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16655334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16655334?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:20-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bruinsma Bastiaan, 2020. "Evaluating Visualisations in Voting Advice Applications," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, 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:36:y:2016:i:7:p:854-867. 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.