Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study.

S Woloshin1, L M Schwartz, S Byram

  • 1VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vermont 05009, USA.

Medical Decision Making : an International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
|August 10, 2000
PubMed
Summary

A new "magnifier" visual analog scale effectively measures low health risk probabilities, outperforming traditional "1 in x" scales. It shows similar validity and reliability to linear scales, but uniquely captures perceptions below 1%.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reproductive factors, exogenous hormone use and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among US women: results from the Liver Cancer Pooling Project.

British journal of cancer·2015
Same author

Experimental identification of diffusive coupling using 2D NMR.

Physical review letters·2014
Same author

What day is today? An inquiry into the process of time orientation.

Memory & cognition·2013
Same author

Nonlinear calibration curves.

Analytical chemistry·2013
Same author

Modeling two-dimensional magnetic resonance measurements in coupled pore systems.

Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics·2013
Same author

Expert judgments of pandemic influenza risks.

Global public health·2009

Area of Science:

  • Health risk perception
  • Psychometrics
  • Risk communication

Background:

  • Assessing patient perception of health risk likelihoods is crucial but challenging, especially for low probabilities (<1%).
  • Existing scales for measuring probability perception lack validation and struggle with low-probability events.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the validity and reliability of a novel visual analog scale with logarithmic "magnifying glass" feature against three benchmark scales.
  • To evaluate the usability of the new scale for assessing probability perception.

Main Methods:

  • A survey study involving 100 veterans/family members and 107 university faculty/students.
  • Participants estimated probabilities of six events using a "magnifying glass" logarithmic scale and three benchmark scales (linear analog with words, linear analog with numbers, "1 in x").

Related Experiment Videos

  • Scales were assessed for validity (ranking correlation), test-retest reliability (2-week interval), and usability (response errors, user feedback).

    • Main Results:

    • The "magnifying glass" and linear scales outperformed the "1 in x" scale in validity, reliability, and usability.
    • The "magnifying glass" scale demonstrated comparable validity (r=0.72) and reliability (r=0.55) to linear scales.
    • The "magnifying glass" scale uniquely facilitated accurate estimation of low probabilities (e.g., <1%), unlike linear scales.

    Conclusions:

    • The "1 in x" scale is ineffective and difficult to use for probability perception.
    • The "magnifying glass" scale offers a valid, reliable, and usable method for assessing health risk perception, particularly for low probabilities.
    • This scale enhances the ability to capture nuanced low-probability judgments, improving risk communication.