Abstract: The present research provides empirical evidence of whether communicating the prenatal risk of chromosomal anomalies using comparison scenarios influences women's ability to distinguish between different risk levels. In 2 experiments, participants read a description of a hypothetical woman who was learning of the risk of chromosomal anomaly as a result of a prenatal screening test. Both experiments used a 3 (risk level) x 3 (scenario) full between-subjects design. In accordance with the experimental condition, participants were presented with a low (e. g., 1 in 5390), a medium (e. g., 1 in 770), or a high risk value (e. g., 1 in 110). Such risk values were presented either on their own or along with additional information illustrating a comparison scenario that provided 2 numerical comparison points. Participants were asked to evaluate the risk of chromosomal anomaly. In Experiment 2, participants' numeracy skills were also assessed. Results showed that the use of comparison scenarios results in significant differences in perceived risk across risk levels whereas such differences are not significant without the comparison scenario, but such a technique has differential effects according to participants' capacity to deal with numbers. Although the technique is beneficial for high-numerate participants, it has no effect on low-numerate participants
Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication
Pighin, Stefania;Savadori, Lucia;Barilli, Elisa;
2013-01-01
Abstract
Abstract: The present research provides empirical evidence of whether communicating the prenatal risk of chromosomal anomalies using comparison scenarios influences women's ability to distinguish between different risk levels. In 2 experiments, participants read a description of a hypothetical woman who was learning of the risk of chromosomal anomaly as a result of a prenatal screening test. Both experiments used a 3 (risk level) x 3 (scenario) full between-subjects design. In accordance with the experimental condition, participants were presented with a low (e. g., 1 in 5390), a medium (e. g., 1 in 770), or a high risk value (e. g., 1 in 110). Such risk values were presented either on their own or along with additional information illustrating a comparison scenario that provided 2 numerical comparison points. Participants were asked to evaluate the risk of chromosomal anomaly. In Experiment 2, participants' numeracy skills were also assessed. Results showed that the use of comparison scenarios results in significant differences in perceived risk across risk levels whereas such differences are not significant without the comparison scenario, but such a technique has differential effects according to participants' capacity to deal with numbers. Although the technique is beneficial for high-numerate participants, it has no effect on low-numerate participantsFile | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Pighin Savadori Barilli Rumiati et al., 2013 Using comparison scenarios to improve.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
370.72 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
370.72 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione