Marilyn M Schapira1, Cindy M Walker2, Kevin J Cappaert2, Pamela S Ganschow3, Kathlyn E Fletcher4, Emily L McGinley5, Sam Del Pozo3, Carrie Schauer5, Sergey Tarima6, Elizabeth A Jacobs7. 1. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (MMS) 2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (CMW, KJC) 3. Department of Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County and Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois (PSG, SDP) 4. Department of Medicine, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (KEF) 5. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (ELM, CS) 6. Institute of Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (ST) 7. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin (EAJ)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health numeracy can be defined as the ability to understand and apply information conveyed with numbers, tables and graphs, probabilities, and statistics to effectively communicate with health care providers, take care of one's health, and participate in medical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (NUMi) using item response theory scaling methods. DESIGN: A 20-item test was formed drawing from an item bank of numeracy questions. Items were calibrated using responses from 1000 participants and a 2-parameter item response theory model. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores on the NUMi to established measures of print and numeric health literacy, mathematic achievement, and cognitive aptitude. PARTICIPANTS: Community and clinical populations in the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of the 1000 respondents were Hispanic, 24% were non-Hispanic white, and 42% were non-Hispanic black. Forty-one percent had no more than a high school education. The mean score on the NUMi was 13.2 (s = 4.6) with a Cronbach α of 0.86. Difficulty and discrimination item response theory parameters of the 20 items ranged from -1.70 to 1.45 and 0.39 to 1.98, respectively. Performance on the NUMi was strongly correlated with the Wide Range Achievement Test-Arithmetic (0.73, P < 0.001), the Lipkus Expanded Numeracy Scale (0.69, P < 0.001), the Medical Data Interpretation Test (0.75, P < 0.001), and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (0.82, P < 0.001). Performance was moderately correlated to the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy (0.43, P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The NUMi was found to be most discriminating among respondents with a lower-than-average level of health numeracy. CONCLUSIONS: The NUMi can be applied in research and clinical settings as a robust measure of the health numeracy construct.
BACKGROUND: Health numeracy can be defined as the ability to understand and apply information conveyed with numbers, tables and graphs, probabilities, and statistics to effectively communicate with health care providers, take care of one's health, and participate in medical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (NUMi) using item response theory scaling methods. DESIGN: A 20-item test was formed drawing from an item bank of numeracy questions. Items were calibrated using responses from 1000 participants and a 2-parameter item response theory model. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores on the NUMi to established measures of print and numeric health literacy, mathematic achievement, and cognitive aptitude. PARTICIPANTS: Community and clinical populations in the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of the 1000 respondents were Hispanic, 24% were non-Hispanic white, and 42% were non-Hispanic black. Forty-one percent had no more than a high school education. The mean score on the NUMi was 13.2 (s = 4.6) with a Cronbach α of 0.86. Difficulty and discrimination item response theory parameters of the 20 items ranged from -1.70 to 1.45 and 0.39 to 1.98, respectively. Performance on the NUMi was strongly correlated with the Wide Range Achievement Test-Arithmetic (0.73, P < 0.001), the Lipkus Expanded Numeracy Scale (0.69, P < 0.001), the Medical Data Interpretation Test (0.75, P < 0.001), and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (0.82, P < 0.001). Performance was moderately correlated to the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy (0.43, P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The NUMi was found to be most discriminating among respondents with a lower-than-average level of health numeracy. CONCLUSIONS: The NUMi can be applied in research and clinical settings as a robust measure of the health numeracy construct.
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Joan Neuner; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Elisabeth Hayes; Purushottam Laud Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Cindy M Walker; Bruce Tyler; Sam Del Pozo; Carrie Schauer; Elizabeth A Jacobs Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tam H Nguyen; Hyunjeong Park; Hae-Ra Han; Kitty S Chan; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Jolie Haun; Miyong T Kim Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-07-29
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Cindy M Walker; Alicia J Smallwood; Denisse Gil; Arshia Faghri; Amanda L Kong; Tina W Yen; Susan McDunn; Elizabeth Marcus; Joan M Neuner Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Cindy M Walker; Tamara Miller; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Diana Imbert; Maria O'Connell; Joan M Neuner Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2014
Authors: Elizabeth A Jacobs; Cindy M Walker; Tamara Miller; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Diana Imbert; Maria O'Connell; Joan M Neuner; Marilyn M Schapira Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alicia J Smallwood; Joan M Neuner; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Cindy M Walker; Marilyn M Schapira Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Gabrielle W Peters; Jacqueline R Kelly; Jason M Beckta; Marney White; Lawrence B Marks; Eric Ford; Suzanne B Evans Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-03