IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i3p665-673.html

Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Marilyn M. Schapira
  • Susan L. Davids
  • Timothy L. McAuliffe
  • Ann B. Nattinger

Abstract

The objective of this article is to compare the accuracy and numeric responses of breast cancer risk perception as measured by a frequency scale and percentage scale. A cross‐sectional survey was conducted. Perceptions of five‐year and lifetime breast cancer risk were measured using a frequency and a percentage scale. Estimation error was calculated as the absolute difference between actual breast cancer risk as determined by the Gail model and perceived risk. Agreement between scales was determined by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the difference between numeric responses. The study was conducted among women enrolled in two primary care clinics associated with an academic medical center. Two‐hundred‐fifty‐four participants were recruited from one of the two participating internal medicine clinics. Inclusion criteria included female gender and age 40–84 years. Exclusion criteria included a history of breast cancer, dementia, or a life expectancy of less than two years. The frequency scale was more accurate than the percentage scale in estimating lifetime risk (p= 0.05), but less accurate in estimating five‐year risk (p

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:665-673
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00466.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00466.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00466.x?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. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    2. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    3. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, December.
    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. 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:plo:pone00:0068019 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    2. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan, 2021. "Simple belief elicitation: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 137-155, April.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    6. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    7. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    8. Joakim Sundh, 2024. "Human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    10. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    11. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Cathy Anne Pinto & Gin Nie Chua & John F. P. Bridges & Ella Brookes & Johanna Hyacinthe & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 255-266, March.
    13. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    14. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    15. Jessica R. Carré & Shelby R. Curtis & Daniel N. Jones, 2023. "Making decisions affecting oneself versus others: The effect of interpersonal closeness and Dark Triad traits," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 328-340, January.
    16. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    17. Mark A. Andor & Thomas K. Bauer & Jana Eßer & Christoph M. Schmidt & Lukas Tomberg, 2025. "Who Gets Vaccinated? Cognitive and Non‐Cognitive Predictors of Individual Behaviour in Pandemics," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 87(3), pages 562-585, June.
    18. Hannah Collacott & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Nicolas Krucien & Bruno Flamion & Kevin Marsh, 2024. "Patients’ Preferences for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatments—A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(3), pages 287-300, May.
    19. David Ronayne & Roberto Veneziani & William R. Zame, 2022. "Do Decision Makers Have Subjective Probabilities? An Experimental Test," Working Papers 940, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    20. Bleemer, Zachary & Zafar, Basit, 2018. "Intended college attendance: Evidence from an experiment on college returns and costs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 184-211.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:665-673. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.