It's no wonder people don't trust statistics. It seems far too many are statistically innumerate.
Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test
http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11808/jdm11808.pdf
The Berlin Numeracy Test was found to be the strongest predictor of comprehension
of everyday risks (e.g., evaluating claims about products and treatments
Fascinating, but scary read that statistical innumeracy is widespread among professionals that presumably should understand this.
But I have a quibble. Take this question on page 46:
Imagine that you see the following advertisement for a
new toothpaste:
Zendil—50% reduction in occurrence of gum inflammation. Zendil is a new toothpaste to prevent gum inflammation. Half as many people who used Zendil developed
gum inflammation when compared to people using a different toothpaste.
Which one of the following would best help you evaluate how much a person could benefit from using Zendil?
1. The risk of gum inflammation for people who do not
use Zendil
2. The risk of gum inflammation for people who use a
different brand of toothpaste for the same purpose
selections 3-6 omitted as ludicrous.
Here's the problem. Answer 1 is best if one assumes everyone brushes their teeth with toothpaste. Answer 2 is best if one assumes a significant number of people do not use toothpaste since the question excludes those. However, it also refers to people that use toothpaste specifically to reduce gum inflammation which may skew results.
So the question seems quite problematic to me. BTW, the "correct" answer is #1
Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test
http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11808/jdm11808.pdf
The Berlin Numeracy Test was found to be the strongest predictor of comprehension
of everyday risks (e.g., evaluating claims about products and treatments
Fascinating, but scary read that statistical innumeracy is widespread among professionals that presumably should understand this.
But I have a quibble. Take this question on page 46:
Imagine that you see the following advertisement for a
new toothpaste:
Zendil—50% reduction in occurrence of gum inflammation. Zendil is a new toothpaste to prevent gum inflammation. Half as many people who used Zendil developed
gum inflammation when compared to people using a different toothpaste.
Which one of the following would best help you evaluate how much a person could benefit from using Zendil?
1. The risk of gum inflammation for people who do not
use Zendil
2. The risk of gum inflammation for people who use a
different brand of toothpaste for the same purpose
selections 3-6 omitted as ludicrous.
Here's the problem. Answer 1 is best if one assumes everyone brushes their teeth with toothpaste. Answer 2 is best if one assumes a significant number of people do not use toothpaste since the question excludes those. However, it also refers to people that use toothpaste specifically to reduce gum inflammation which may skew results.
So the question seems quite problematic to me. BTW, the "correct" answer is #1
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3gyPa2K
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire