Despite high objective numeracy, lower numeric confidence relates to worse financial and medical outcomes

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

People often laugh about being “no good at math.” Unrecognized, however, is that about one-third of American adults are likely too innumerate to operate effectively in financial and health environments. Two numeric competencies conceivably matter—objective numeracy (ability to “run the numbers” correctly; like literacy but with numbers) and numeric self-efficacy (confidence that provides engagement and persistence in numeric tasks). We reasoned, however, that attaining objective numeracy’s benefits should depend on numeric confidence. Specifically, among the more objectively numerate, having more numeric confidence (vs. less) should lead to better outcomes because they persist in numeric tasks and have the skills to support numeric success. Among the less objectively numerate, however, having more (vs. less) numeric confidence should hurt outcomes, as they also persist, but make unrecognized mistakes. Two studies were designed to test the generalizability of this hypothesized interaction. We report secondary analysis of financial outcomes in a diverse US dataset and primary analysis of disease activity among systemic lupus erythematosus patients. In both domains, best outcomes appeared to require numeric calculation skills and the persistence of numeric confidence. “Mismatched” individuals (high ability/low confidence or low ability/high confidence) experienced the worst outcomes. For example, among the most numerate patients, only 7% of the more numerically confident had predicted disease activity indicative of needing further treatment compared with 31% of high-numeracy/low-confidence patients and 44% of low-numeracy/high-confidence patients. Our work underscores that having 1 of these competencies (objective numeracy or numeric self-efficacy) does not guarantee superior outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 45

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure.

Judith Hibbard, Eldon R. Mahoney, Jean Stockard … (2005)

The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.

0 comments Cited 606 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach

Colin Camerer, Dan Lovallo (1999)

0 comments Cited 281 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.

Angela Fagerlin, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Peter Ubel … (2007)

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. To design a subjective measure (i.e., self-assessment) of quantitative ability that distinguishes low- and high-numerate individuals yet is less aversive, quicker to administer, and more usable for telephone and Internet surveys than existing numeracy measures. Paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The general public (N = 703) surveyed at 2 hospitals. Forty-nine subjective numeracy questions were compared to measures of objective numeracy. 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). 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.