Background: Statistical numeracy, necessary for making informed medical decisions, is reduced among older adults who make more decisions about their medical care and treatment than at any other stage of life. Objective numeracy scales are a source of anxiety among patients, heightened among older adults. Objective: We investigate the subjective numeracy scale as an alternative tool for measuring statistical numeracy with older adult samples. Methods: Numeracy was assessed using objective measures for 526 adults ranging in age from 18 to 93 years, and all participants provided subjective numeracy ratings. Results: Subjective numeracy correlated highly with objective measurements among oldest adults (70+ years; r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.32, 0.66), and for younger age groups. Subjective numeracy explained 33.2% of age differences in objective numeracy. Conclusion: The subjective numeracy scale provides an effective tool for assessing statistical numeracy for broad age ranges and circumvents problems associated with objective numeracy measures.

Keywords:
Objective numeracy, Subjective numeracy, Older adults, Risk communication, Informed medical decision making
1.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG: The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2007;127:966-972.
2.
Schaie KW: Intellectual Development in Adulthood: the Seattle Longitudinal Study. London, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
3.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ: The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision-making. Learn Individ Differ 2007;17:147-159.
4.
Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson AN: Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:720-731.
5.
Lipkus IM, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P: Breast cancer patients' treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program. Adjuvant online: The influence of numeracy. Med Decis Making 2010;30;464-473.
6.
Rolison JJ, Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T: What do men understand about lifetime risk following genetic testing? The effect of context and numeracy. Health Psychol 2012;31:530-533.
7.
Wood S, Hanoch Y, Barnes A, Liu P-J, Cummings J, Bhattacharya C, Rice T: Numeracy and Medicare Part D: The importance of choice and literacy for numbers in optimizing decision-making for Medicare's prescription drug program. Psychol Aging 2011;26:295-307.
8.
Wolf MS, Gazmararian JA, Baker DW: Health literacy and functional health status among older adults. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1946-1952.
9.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK: General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001;21:37-44.
10.
Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF: How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision-making. Psychol Bull 2009;135:943-973.
11.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM: Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making 2007;27:672-680.
12.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A: Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 2007;27:663-671.
13.
Ashcraft MH: Math anxiety: personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2002;11:181-185.
14.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R: Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:462-468.
15.
Cohen J: A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155-159.
16.
Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz C, Mazzocco K, Dickert S: Numeracy and decision-making. Psychol Sci 2006;17:407-413.
17.
Banks J, Oldfield Z: Understanding pensions: cognitive function, numerical ability and retirement saving. Fisc Stud 2007;28:143-170.
18.
Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG: Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decision-making 2010;5:411-419.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.