Natural Frequencies Do Foster Public Understanding of Medical Tests: Comment on Pighin, Gonzalez, Savadori, and Girotto (2016)

Michelle McDowell, Mirta Galesic and Gerd Gigerenzer
Additional contact information
Michelle McDowell: Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
Mirta Galesic: Cowan Chair in Human Social Dynamics, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Gerd Gigerenzer: Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

Medical Decision Making, 2018, vol. 38, issue 3, 390-399

Abstract: Patients and doctors often need to make decisions based on the results of medical tests. When these results are presented in the form of conditional probabilities, even doctors find it difficult to interpret them correctly. There is over 20 y of research supporting the finding that people are better able to calculate the correct positive predictive value of a test when given information in natural frequencies, as opposed to conditional probabilities. Natural frequencies are one of a few psychological tools that have made it into evidence-based medicine. Recently, Pighin and others (Med Decis Making 2016;36:686–91) argued that natural frequencies could hinder informed decision making, a critique based on a single task and a crude scoring criterion we refer to as the 50%-Split. Our commentary addresses these criticisms based on three analyses. First, we show how the 50%-Split scoring used by Pighin and others misclassifies known errors, such as solely attending to the hit rate (true-positive rate) of the test, as strategies that support understanding. Second, we reanalyze data from 21 additional problems completed by various participant groups to show that their scoring criterion does not support their results in 19 out of 21 cases. Third, we apply the mean deviation scoring method and show that, when given information in natural frequency formats, participants provide estimates that are closer to the correct Bayesian solution than for conditional probability formats. In each analysis, natural frequencies lead to more correct judgements and therefore promote informed decision making relative to conditional probabilities. We welcome further discussions of performance metrics that can provide insight into how the public and therefore patients understand the implications of medical test results.

Keywords: conditional probabilities; medical test; natural frequencies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18754508 (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:38:y:2018:i:3:p:390-399

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18754508

Access Statistics for this article

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