ArticleBMC medical education2023
Boosting for insight and/or boosting for agency? How to maximize accurate test interpretation with natural frequencies.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.BMJ open · 2025Article
- How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany physicians do not know how to accurately interpret test results using Bayes' rule. As a remedy, two kinds of interventions have been shown effective: boosting insight and boosting agency with natural frequencies. To boost insight, test statistics are provided in natural frequencies (rather than conditional probabilities), without instructions on how to use them. To boost agency, a training is provided on how to translate probabilities into natural frequencies and apply them in Bayes' rule. What has not been shown is whether boosting agency is sufficient or if representing test statistics in natural frequencies may additionally boost insight to maximize accurate test interpretation.
methodsWe used a pre/posttest design to assess test interpretation accuracy of 577 medical students before and after a training on two Bayesian reasoning tasks, one providing conditional probabilities, the other natural frequencies. The pretest assessed baseline abilities versus the effect of natural frequencies to boost insight. After participants received a training on how to translate conditional probabilities into natural frequencies and how to apply them in Bayes' rule, test interpretation skills were assessed using the same tasks again, comparing the effects of training-induced agency with versus without additionally boosting insight (i.e., test statistics in natural frequencies versus conditional probabilities).
resultsCompared to the test question formatted in conditional probabilities (34% correct answers), natural frequencies facilitated Bayesian reasoning without training (68%), that is, they increased insight. The training on how to use natural frequencies improved performance for tasks formatted in conditional probabilities (64%). Performance was maximal after training and with test statistics formatted in natural frequencies, that is, with a combination of boosting insight and agency (89%).
conclusionsNatural frequencies should be used to boost insight and agency to maximize effective use of teaching resources. Thus, mandating that test statistics are provided in natural frequencies and adopting short trainings on how to translate conditional probabilities into natural frequencies and how to apply them in Bayes' rule will help to maximize accurate test interpretation.
trial registrationThe study was a registered with the German Clinical Trial Registry ( DRKS00008723 ; 06/03/2015).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.