Measuring numeracy without a Math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale
Measuring numeracy without a Math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x07304449
复制
发表时间：
2007-09-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Smith, Dylan M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fagerlin, Angela;Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.;Smith, Dylan M.
背景。在病人了解医疗的风险之前，基本的计算能力是必要的。之前的研究使用了类似于数学测试的客观测量方法来评估计算能力。目标。设计一种量化能力的主观测量（即自我评估），以区分低计算能力和高计算能力的个人，但比现有的计算能力测量方法更少，管理更快，更适用于电话和互联网调查。研究设计。纸笔问卷。科目。在2家医院接受调查的普通民众（N = 703）。措施。49个主观计算题与客观计算题进行了比较。结果。主观算术量表（SNS）由8个项目组成，经过了几轮测试。其中四个项目衡量人们对自己进行各种数学运算的能力的看法，另外四个项目衡量人们对数字信息表达的偏好。SNS与Lipkus等人的客观计算能力量表显著相关(相关系数：0。但在较短的时间内完成（24秒/项vs . 31秒/项，P < 0.05），并且被认为压力较小（1.62 vs . 2.69, P < 0.01）和较少令人沮丧（1.92 vs . 2.88, P < 0.01）。完成社交网络测试的参与者中有50%的人自愿参加另一项研究，而完成Lipkus和其他类似测试的参与者中只有8%的人自愿参加（优势比=11.00,95%置信区间=2.14-56.65）。结论。SNS与客观计算能力的数学测试有很好的相关性，但可以在更短的时间内减轻负担。此外，它更有可能让参与者愿意参与额外的研究，并显示出更低的缺失或不完整的数据率。
Background. Basic numeracy skills are necessary before patients can understand the risks of medical treatments. Previous research has used objective measures, similar to mathematics tests, to evaluate numeracy. Objectives. To design a subjective measure (i.e., self-assessment) of quantitative ability that distinguishes low- and high-numerate individuals yet is less oversive, quicker to administer, and more useable for telephone and Internet surveys than existing numeracy measures. Research Design. Paper and-pencil questionnaires. Subjects. The general public (N = 703) surveyed at 2 hospitals. Measures. Forty-nine subjective numeracy questions were compared to measures of objective numeracy. Results. An 8-item measure, the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), was developed through several rounds of testing. Four items measure people's beliefs about their skill in performing various mathematical operations, and 4 measure people's preferences regarding the presentation of numerical information. The SNS was significantly correlated with Lipkus and others' objective numeracy scale (correlations: 0. 63-0.68) yet was completed in less time (24 s/item v. 31 s/item, P < 0.05) and was perceived as less stressful (1.62 v. 2.69, P < 0.01) and less frustrating (1.92 v. 2.88, P < 0.01). Fifty percent of participants who completed the SNS volunteered to participate in another study, whereas only 8% of those who completed the Lipkus and others scale similarly volunteered (odds ratio=11.00 ' 95% confidence interval=2.14-56.65). Conclusions. The SNS correlates well with mathematical test measures of objective numeracy but can be administered in less time and with less burden. In addition, it is much more likely to leave participants willing to participate in additional research and shows much lower rates of missing or incomplete data.