Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions
Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x06297101
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Zotov, Vladimir
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feldman-Stewart, Deb;Brundage, Michael D.;Zotov, Vladimir
目的.比较相对准确度和相对响应时间（RT）以及在治疗决策背景下判断较大/较小时，将以下元素添加到先前研究的图形中时前景和背景颜色的影响：1）数字（显示的百分比），2）参考标度，以及3）数字和参考标度。法一项实验比较了饼图、竖条、横条、数字、系统椭圆和随机椭圆。在每次试验中，参与者看到2个百分比（以1种格式），并被要求选择生存机会较大或副作用机会较小。结果为错误和RT。颜色为黑色和白色或蓝色和黄色，背景颜色为白色或蓝色。参与者是来自社区的216名50岁以上的志愿者。结果数字格式与数字格式和比例尺格式相比，产生了一定的相对误差和相对RT。然而，只有一个尺度的图表改变了相对性能：错误随着更困难的格式而增加（饼图和随机椭圆形增加3%-4%，与其他格式的1%相似），但HT随着更容易的格式而减少（垂直条，水平条和系统椭圆形减少100-200 ms，与其他格式增加0-300 ms）。带有刻度的竖条是最快和最准确的处理方法。前景色和背景色对两种结果都没有任何影响。结论.为了支持老年人对相对程度的判断，风险信息最好使用带刻度的竖条;带刻度的系统椭圆格式是最容易处理的格式之一。
Purpose. To compare relative accuracy and relative response times (RTs) as well as impact of foreground and background colors in a treatment decision context of judging larger/smaller when the following elements are added to the graphics studied previously: 1) a number (the displayed percentage), 2) a referent scale, and 3) a number and a referent scale. Method. An experiment compared pie charts, vertical bars, horizontal bars, digits, systematic ovals, and random ovals. On each trial, participants saw 2 percentages (in 1 format) and were asked to choose the larger chance of survival or the smaller chance of side effects. Outcomes were errors and RT. Formats were either black and white or blue and yellow, background color was either white or blue. Participants were 216 volunteers from the community older than 50 years. Results. Formats with a number produced the some relative errors and relative RT as the formats with a number and scale. Formats with only a scale, however, shifted relative performance: Errors increased with more difficult formats (pie charts and random ovals by 3%-4% v. similar to 1% with other formats), but HT decreased with easier formats (vertical bars, horizontal bars, and systematic ovals decreased 100-200 ms v. an increase of 0-300 ms with other formats). Vertical bars with scales were the fastest and most accurately processed. Neither foreground nor background color had any impact on either outcome. Conclusions. For supporting older people's judgments of relative extent, risk information is best presented using vertical bars with a scale; the format systematic ovals with a scale are among the next most easily processed.