General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples

By Isaac Lipkus, G. Samsa, B. Rimer. Medical decision making, 2001

1,504 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac28aa88ea2b33dfcbebea144e5051740a4ee371

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Defining and Measuring Financial Literacy (2009, background): “As explained above, we consider numeracy, or basic number skill ( Lipkus, Samsa, & Rimer, 2001; Peters et al., 2006), to be a distinct construct that is related to and supports financial literacy.”
Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition (2014, methodology): “Evidence also indicates that the test provides stronger predictive validity for risk judgments (i.e., Låg et al., 2013; Lipkus et al., 2001).”
Formats for Improving Risk Communication in Medical Tradeoff Decisions (2006, positive): “Yet, laypeople clearly have great difficulty understanding and manipulating probabilities (Black, Nease, & Tosteson, 1995 ; Lipkus, Samsa, & Rimer, 2001 ; Office of Cancer Communications, 1998 ; Schwartz, Woloshin, Black, & Welch, 1997 ).”
How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. (2009, positive): “In fact, when one compares the performance of the less well educated participants in the L. M. Schwartz et al. (1997) study with that of the more highly educated participants in the Lipkus et al. (2001) study, the results are remarkably similar.”
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk (2010, background): “Because of its high correlation with the numeracy measure (Lipkus et al., 2001), the SNS provides a parsimonious measurement of an individual’s quantitative abilities.”
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit (2015, positive): “The frequently used 3-item numeracy scale is strongly related to an expanded and more difﬁcult 7-item numeracy scale, suggesting that both scales loaded on a single construct (labelled “global numeracy” by Lipkus, Samsa, and Rimer, 2001).”
Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit? (2016, neutral): “…12-item measure of verbal intelligence (α = .60) known as the “Wordsum” (Malhotra, Krosnick & Haertel, 2007), (2) a 9-item measure of numeracy (α = .57; Lipkus et al., 2001), and (3) a 12-item version of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, which was designed to test abstract reasoning (α = .69;…”
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number : 1072954 Registered office : (2004, result): “It also should be noted that our findings stand in contrast to earlier work that shows a relationship between numeracy levels and an ability to solve mathematical problems (Lipkus et al., 2001).”
What Would You Do with $500? Spending Responses to Gains, Losses, News, and Loans (2018, methodology): “(33)The survey included a battery of five questions taken from Lipkus et al. (2001) and Lusardi (2008) to measure respondents’ numeracy.”
Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test (2012, methodology): “To date, however, few tests have investigated the extent to which the Lipkus et al. (2001) or Schwartz et al. (1997) instruments provide unique predictive power beyond other cognitive ability instruments either within or across cultures (Cokely & Kelley, 2009; Galesic & Garcia-Retamero, 2010;…”
Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale (2007, background): “A factor analysis was not conducted on the objective numeracy scale, as the scale’s authors have already conducted and reported the results of a factor analysis of this scale.(11) The results of that factor analysis indicated that the scale has only 1 dimension.”
Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options (2008, methodology): “…information sheet including age, gender, GPA, and ACT scores; the 18-item Need for Cognition scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984); and the 11-item Numeracy scale shown in Appendix B (Lipkus et al., 2001).2 All inferential statistics used mean-deviated continuous scores (Irwin & McClelland, 2001).”
Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers (2013, background): “, objective numeracy [121,134,126,135,136]; subjective numeracy [137]; graph literacy [61]; other aspects of the health literacy [138,139].”