Comparing the Standard Rating Scale and the Magnifier Scale for Assessing Risk Perceptions

Andrea D. Gurmankin, Marie Helweg-Larsen, Katrina Armstrong, Stephen E. Kimmel and Kevin G. M. Volpp
Additional contact information
Andrea D. Gurmankin: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Smith 253, Boston, MA; Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Center for Community Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusettsandrea_gurmankin@dfci.harvard.edu.
Marie Helweg-Larsen: Department of Psychology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Katrina Armstrong: Abramson Cancer Center, the Department of Medicine, and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Stephen E. Kimmel: Department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology and the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia
Kevin G. M. Volpp: Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 5, 560-570

Abstract: Objective. A new risk perception rating scale (“magnifier scale†) was recently developed to reduce elevated perceptions of low-probability health events, but little is known about its performance. The authors tested whether the magnifier scale lowers risk perceptions for low-probability (in 0%–1% magnifying glass section of scale) but not high-probability (>1%) events compared to a standard rating scale (SRS). Method. In studies 1 (n = 463) and 2 (n = 105), undergraduates completed a survey assessing risk perceptions of high- and low-probability events in a randomized 2X 2 design: in study 1 using the magnifier scale or SRS, numeric risk information provided or not, and in study 2 using the magnifier scale or SRS, high- or low-probability event. In study 3, hypertension patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs hospital completed a similar survey (n = 222) assessing risk perceptions of 2 self-relevant high-probability events—heart attack and stroke—with the magnifier scale or the SRS. Results. In study 1, when no risk information was provided, risk perceptions for both high- and low-probability events were significantly lower ( P

Keywords: magnifier scale; standard rating scale; risk perceptions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05280560 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:560-570

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05280560

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().