IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i8p932-936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a Short, 3-Item Version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Candace D. McNaughton
  • Kerri L. Cavanaugh
  • Sunil Kripalani
  • Russell L. Rothman
  • Kenneth A. Wallston

Abstract

Background and Objective. Efficiency in scale design reduces respondent burden. A brief but reliable measure of numeracy may provide a useful research tool eligible for integration into large epidemiological studies or clinical trials. Our goal was to validate a 3-item version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS-3). Design and Setting. We examined 7 separate cross-sectional data sets: patients in the emergency department ( n = 208), clinic ( n = 205), and hospital ( n = 460; n = 2053) and patients with chronic kidney disease ( n = 147), with diabetes ( n = 318), and on hemodialysis ( n = 143). Measurements: Internal reliability of the SNS-3 was assessed with Cronbach’s α. Criterion validity was determined by nonparametric correlations of the SNS-3 with SNS-8 and other measures of numeracy; construct validity was determined by correlations with measures of health literacy and education. Results: The SNS-3 had good internal reliability (median Cronbach’s α = 0.78) and correlated highly with the full SNS (median Ï = 0.91). The SNS-3 was significantly correlated with other measures of numeracy (e.g., median Ï = 0.57 with the Wide Range Achievement Test 4), health literacy (e.g., median Ï = 0.35 with the Shortened Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults), and education (median Ï = 0.41), providing good evidence of criterion and construct validity. Conclusion: The SNS-3 is sufficiently reliable and valid to be used as a measure of subjective numeracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Candace D. McNaughton & Kerri L. Cavanaugh & Sunil Kripalani & Russell L. Rothman & Kenneth A. Wallston, 2015. "Validation of a Short, 3-Item Version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 932-936, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:932-936
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15581800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15581800
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15581800?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. Marilyn M. Schapira & Susan L. Davids & Timothy L. McAuliffe & Ann B. Nattinger, 2004. "Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 665-673, June.
    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. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Shereen J. Chaudhry & Michael Hand & Howard Kunreuther, 2020. "Broad bracketing for low probability events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 211-244, December.
    3. Shereen J. Chaudhry & Michael Hand & Howard Kunreuther, 2020. "Broad Bracketing for Low Probability Events," NBER Working Papers 27319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Negin Hajizadeh & Melissa J. Basile & Andrzej Kozikowski & Meredith Akerman & Tara Liberman & Thomas McGinn & Michael A. Diefenbach, 2017. "Other Ways of Knowing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 216-229, April.
    2. Yun Jie, 2022. "Frequency or total number? A comparison of different presentation formats on risk perception during COVID-19," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 215-237, January.
    3. Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Cornelia Betsch, 2013. "The Measurement of Subjective Probability: Evaluating the Sensitivity and Accuracy of Various Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1812-1828, October.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:215-237 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, July.
    6. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.

    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:35:y:2015:i:8:p:932-936. 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.