2. Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; Washington, DC: 1993.
3. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483) National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; Washington, DC: 2006.
4. US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2nd ed. US Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.: Nov 2, 2000.
5. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association Health literacy: Report of the council on scientific affairs. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281:552–557. [PubMed]
6. Nutbeam D. Health promotion glossary. Health Promot Int. 1998;13:349–364.
7. Golbeck AL, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE. A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:375–376. [PubMed] 8. Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: A multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:713–721. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Indiv Differ. 2007;17:147–159.
10. Peters E, Vastfjall D, Slovic P, et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:408–414. [PubMed] 11. Hibbard JH, Peters E, Dixon A, Tusler M. Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: It isn't just about literacy. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:379–394. [PubMed]
12. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century (NCES 2006-470). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. US Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.: 2005.
13. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;274:1677–1682. [PubMed] 14. Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H, et al. Patient understanding of food labels: The role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:391–398. [PubMed] 15. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Long SW, et al. Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients. Fam Med. 1991;23:433–435. [PubMed]
16. Wilkinson G. WRAT-3: Wide Range Achievement Test, Administration Manual. Wide Range; Wilmington: 1993.
17. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–972. [PubMed] 18. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:884–892. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 19. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–124. [PubMed] 20. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical students’ ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5:35–40. [PubMed] 21. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21:37–44. [PubMed]
22. Yamigishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1997;11:495–506.
23. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ, Whalen P. Genetic testing and medical decision making. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2406–2408. [PubMed] 24. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–548. [PubMed] 25. Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision making. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4299–4305. [PubMed] 26. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–921. [PubMed] 27. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: A review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6:61–682. [PubMed] 28. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. Br Med J. 1994;309:761–764. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 29. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:152–157. [PubMed] 30. Sarfati D, Howden-Chapman P, Woodward A, Salmond C. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen. 1998;5:137–140. [PubMed] 31. DeWalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S, Lohr KN, Pignone MP. Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:1228–1239. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 32. Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Literacy and Health Outcomes. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 87. AHRQ; Rockville: 2004. [PubMed] (Prepared by RTI International, University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016) AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-1: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January. 33. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Pub Health. 1997;87:1027–1030. [PubMed] 34. Sentell TL, Halpin HA. Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:862–866. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 35. Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, Nurss JR. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:166–172. [PubMed] 36. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:537–541. [PubMed] 37. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38:33–42. [PubMed] 38. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS. Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:791–798. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 39. Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Baker DW. Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Medical Care. 2002;40:395–404. [PubMed] 40. Estrada CA, Martin-Hryniewicz M, Peek BT, Collins C, Byrd JC. Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulation control. Am J Med Sci. 2004;328:88–93. [PubMed] 41. Apter AJ, Cheng J, Small D, et al. Asthma numeracy skill and health literacy. J Asthma. 2006;43:705–710. [PubMed] 42. Gazmararian JA, Kripalani S, Miller MJ, et al. Factors associated with medication refill adherence in cardiovascular-related diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1215–1221. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 43. Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Reyna VF. Utility elicitation using single item questions compared with a computerized interview. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21:97–104. [PubMed] 44. Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol. 2002;12:160–178. [PubMed] 45. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson ANA. Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21:382–390. [PubMed] 46. Schwartz SR, McDowell J, Yueh B. Numeracy and the shortcomings of utility assessment in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 2004;26:401–407. [PubMed] 47. Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, et al. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:938–943. [PubMed] 48. Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH, Barnett DR. Residents’ ability to identify patients with poor literacy skills. Acad Med. 2002;77:1039–1041. [PubMed] 49. Rogers ES, Wallace LS, Weiss BD. Misperceptions of medical understanding in low-literacy patients: Implications for cancer prevention. Cancer Control. 2006;3:225–229. [PubMed] 50. Doak LG, Doak CC. Patient comprehension profiles: Recent findings and strategies. Patient Couns Health Educ. 1980;2:101–106. [PubMed] 51. Kicklighter JR, Stein MA. Factors influencing diabetic clients’ ability to read and comprehend printed diabetic diet material. Diabetes Educ. 1993;19:40–46. [PubMed] 52. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Pract. 1990;31:533–538. [PubMed] 53. Powers RD. Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed materials. Ann Emerg Med. 1988;17:124–126. [PubMed] 54. Safeer RS, Keenan J. Health literacy: The gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Phys. 2005;72:463–468. [PubMed]
55. Dunning D, Heath C, Suls JM. Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2004;5:69–106.
56. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25:290–300. [PubMed] 57. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al. Quick assessment of literacy primary care: The newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:514–522. [PubMed] 58. Estrada C, Barnes V, Collins C, Byrd JC. Health literacy and numeracy. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282:527. [PubMed]
59. Montori VM, Leung TW, Thompson CA, et al. Validation of a diabetes numeracy evaluation tool [Abstract]. Diabetes. 2004;53(Suppl 2):A224–A225.
60. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:672–680. [PubMed] 61. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:663–671. [PubMed] 62. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Patients and medical statistics: Interest, confidence, and ability. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:996–1000. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 63. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, et al. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20:228–238. [PubMed] 64. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:223–228. [PubMed] 65. Ancker J, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren J. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:608–618. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 66. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monograph. 1999;25:149–163. [PubMed]
67. Cleveland W, McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;77:541–547.
68. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ. 2008 in press.
69. Reyna V, Brainerd C. Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learn Individ Differ. 1995;7:1–75.
70. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy-trace theory. Med Decis Mak. 2008 in press. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 71. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:34–43. [PubMed] 72. Hollands JG, Tanaka T, Dyre BP. Understanding bias in proportion production. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002;28:563–574. [PubMed] 73. Sandman P, Weinstein N, Miller P. High risk or low: How location on a “risk ladder” affected perceived risk. Risk Anal. 1994;14:35–45. [PubMed]
74. Lakoff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1987.
75. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal. 2005;25:1–7. [PubMed]
76. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The origins of probability judgment: A review of data and theories. In: Wright G, Ayton P, editors. Subjective Probability. Wiley; New York: 1994. pp. 239–272.
77. Stone E, Yates J, Parker A. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997;3:243–256.
78. Stone E, Sieck W, Bull B, et al. Foreground: Background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Org Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003;90:19–36.
79. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21:459–467. [PubMed]
80. Zacks J, Levy E, Tversky B, Schiano D. Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1998;4:119–138.
81. Levy E, Zacks J, Tversky B, Schiano D. Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; Vancouver: 1996. pp. 42–49.
82. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Smith D. Measuring numeracy and the impact of numeracy on medical decision making.. Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine; Washington, DC. 2007.
83. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:169–190. [PubMed] 84. Bastardi A, Shafir E. On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:19–32. [PubMed] 85. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–1262. [PubMed]
86. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. J Behav Decis Mak. 1991;4:249–262.
87. Benjamin DJ, Brown SA, Shapiro JM. [December 17, 2007];“Who is “behavioral”? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=675264.
88. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect. 2005;19:24–42.
89. Ashcraft MH. Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2002;11:181–185.
90. Fischhoff B. Assessing adolescent decision-making competence. Dev Rev. 2008 in press.
91. Gigerenzer G. Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). In: Wright G, Ayton P, editors. Subjective Probability. Wiley; New York, NY: 1994. pp. 129–161.
92. Dehaene S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1997.
93. Natter HM, Berry DC. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19:123–135.
94. Chen MK, Lakshminaryanan V, Santos LR. The evolution of our preferences: Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. J Polit Econ. 2006;114:517–537.
95. Barbey AK, Sloman SA. Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30:241–254. [PubMed]
96. Sloman S. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:3–22.
97. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49:709–724. [PubMed] 98. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004;24:311–322. [PubMed]
99. Reyna VF, Mills BA. Converging evidence supports fuzzy-trace theory's nested sets hypothesis (but not the frequency hypothesis). Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30:278–280.
100. Reyna VF, Ellis SC. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children's risky decision making. Psychol Sci. 1994;5:275–279.
101. Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2006;7:1–44.
102. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12:179–195. [PubMed]
103. Reyna VF. Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Dev Rev. 1991;11:317–336.
104. Reyna VF, Adam MB. Fuzzy-trace theory, risk communication, and product labeling in sexually transmitted diseases. Risk Anal. 2003;23:325–342. [PubMed] 105. Rivers S, Mills B, Reyna VF. Risky behavior under the influence: A fuzzy-trace theory of emotion in adolescence. Dev Rev. 2008 in press. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 106. Schapira M. [December 13, 2007];The development of a health numeracy measure. Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects. Available at: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov. 107. Donelle L, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Assessing health numeracy among community-dwelling older adults. J Health Commun. 2007;12:651–655. [PubMed] 108. Seligman HK, Wang FF, Palacios JL, et al. Physician notification of their diabetes patients’ limited health literacy: A randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1001–1007. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 109. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:696–713. [PubMed] 110. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Mortality versus survival graphs: Improving temporal consistence in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66:100–107. [PubMed] 111. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006;11:569–582. [PubMed]
112. Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM. Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Org Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;60:387–408.
113. Carpenter PA, Shah P. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1998;4:75–100.
114. Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science. 1985;229:828–833. [PubMed] 115. Burkell J. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. J Med Lib Assoc. 2004;92:200–208. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
116. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull Psychon Soc. 1993;31:135–138.
117. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patient interpretations of terms connoting low probabilities when communicating about surgical risk. Theor Surg. 1993;8:143–145. [PubMed] 118. Kenney RM. Between never and always. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:1097–1098. [PubMed] 119. Bryant GD, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: Words and numbers. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:411–412. [PubMed] 120. Woloshin KK, Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW. Patients’ interpretation of qualitative probability statements. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3:961–966. [PubMed] 121. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH, Mazur MD. How patients’ preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: Asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19:394–398. [PubMed] 122. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:114–117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 123. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:237–240. [PubMed]
124. Brun W, Teigen KH. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Org Behav Hum Decis Process. 1988;41:390–404.
125. O'Brien BJ. Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989;39:98–100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 126. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:740–744. [PubMed] 127. Nakao MA, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med. 1983;74:1061–1065. [PubMed] 128. Mapes REA. Verbal and numerical estimates of probability in therapeutic contexts. Soc Sci Med. 1979;13A:277–282. [PubMed]