Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34058740›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2021

Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Genomics Knowledge Scale.

Michael D Linderman, Sabrina A Suckiel, Nathan Thompson, David J Weiss, J Scott Roberts, Robert C Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Interaction of identity and beliefs with genetic literacy.American journal of human genetics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael D LindermanDepartment of Computer Science, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA.
Sabrina A SuckielThe Institute for Genomic Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Nathan ThompsonAssessment Systems Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
David J WeissAssessment Systems Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Robert C GreenDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Finding Genomic Profiles of COVID-19 Phenotypes from the EHRU01HG008685 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ELIZABETH W KARLSON, Matthew S Lebo · 2015 to 2026
$13.6M
Return of Genomic Results and Estimating Penetrance in Population-Based CohortsR01HL143295 · NHLBI · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI CARSON, APRIL P, GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2019 to 2022
$7.2M
Genome Sequence-Based Screening for Childhood Risk and Newborn IllnessU19HD077671 · NICHD · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BEGGS, ALAN H., GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2013 to 2018
$6.1M
Experiences and Outcomes in Early Adopters of Predispositional SequencingR01HG009922 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2018 to 2020
$2.6M
Developing a Genomics Literacy MeasureR03HG008809 · NHGRI · MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE · PI LINDERMAN, MICHAEL DAVID · 2016 to 2017
$128k
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009922NHGRI NIH HHS R03 HG008809NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008685NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL143295NICHD NIH HHS U19 HD077671
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic testing is increasingly employed in clinical, research, educational, and commercial contexts. Genomic literacy is a prerequisite for the effective application of genomic testing, creating a corresponding need for validated tools to assess genomics knowledge. We sought to develop a reliable measure of genomics knowledge that incorporates modern genomic technologies and is informative for individuals with diverse backgrounds, including those with clinical/life sciences training.

methodsWe developed the GKnowM Genomics Knowledge Scale to assess the knowledge needed to make an informed decision for genomic testing, appropriately apply genomic technologies and participate in civic decision-making. We administered the 30-item draft measure to a calibration cohort (n = 1,234) and subsequent participants to create a combined validation cohort (n = 2,405). We performed a multistage psychometric calibration and validation using classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) and conducted a post-hoc simulation study to evaluate the suitability of a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) implementation.

resultsBased on exploratory factor analysis, we removed 4 of the 30 draft items. The resulting 26-item GKnowM measure has a single dominant factor. The scale internal consistency is α = 0.85, and the IRT 3-PL model demonstrated good overall and item fit. Validity is demonstrated with significant correlation (r = 0.61) with an existing genomics knowledge measure and significantly higher scores for individuals with adequate health literacy and healthcare providers (HCPs), including HCPs who work with genomic testing. The item bank is well suited to CAT, achieving high accuracy (r = 0.97 with the full measure) while administering a mean of 13.5 items.

conclusionGKnowM is an updated, broadly relevant, rigorously validated 26-item measure for assessing genomics knowledge that we anticipate will be useful for assessing population genomic literacy and evaluating the effectiveness of genomics educational interventions.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyFactor Analysis, StatisticalGenomicsHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesComputerized adaptive testingGenomic literacyGenomic sequencingInformed decision-makingKnowledge measure

Identifiers

PMID34058740
PMCPMC8962920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.