Validating the Medical Data Interpretation Test in a Dutch population.

OBJECTIVE To validate the Dutch translation of the Medical Data Interpretation Test. METHODS A test-retest design with a 2-week interval was used. RESULTS The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC=.82), the limits-of-agreement interval (LOA=-8.96 to 2.48) and the test-retest reliability (Pearson's r=86) suggest that the Dutch translation has good reproducibility. Construct validity was tested by two hypotheses, both of which were confirmed. University participants had higher test scores than non-university participants (p=.02), and males did not score differently than females (p=.61). CONCLUSION The results suggest that the Dutch version of the Medical Data Interpretation Test is an adequate scale to assess ability to interpret medical data. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Assessing patients' numeracy skills before a counseling session will enable the counselor to adjust subsequent communication accordingly and, as such, improve the session's effectiveness.

[1]  R M Kaplan,et al.  Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[2]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[4]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[5]  H. Welch,et al.  Women's Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risk , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Can Patients Interpret Health Information? An Assessment of the Medical Data Interpretation Test , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[8]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[10]  Michael Pignone,et al.  Development and pilot testing of a disease management program for low literacy patients with heart failure. , 2004, Patient education and counseling.

[11]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health measurement scales , 2008 .

[12]  Stacey L Sheridan,et al.  Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. , 2004, American journal of preventive medicine.

[13]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.