Medicine in words and numbers: A cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales

Abstract

Background. In the complex domain of medical decision making, reasoning under uncertainty can benefit from supporting tools. Automated decision support tools often build upon mathematical models, such as Bayesian networks. These networks require probabilities which often have to be assessed by experts in the domain of application. Probability response scales can be used to support the assessment process. We compare assessments obtained with different types of response scale. Methods. General practitioners (GPs) gave assessments on and preferences for three different probability response scales: a numerical scale, a scale with only verbal labels, and a combined verbal-numerical scale we had designed ourselves. Standard analyses of variance were performed. Results. No differences in assessments over the three response scales were found. Preferences for type of scale differed: the less experienced GPs preferred the verbal scale, the most experienced preferred the numerical scale, with the groups in between having a preference for the combined verbal-numerical scale. Conclusion. We conclude that all three response scales are equally suitable for supporting probability assessment. The combined verbal-numerical scale is a good choice for aiding the process, since it offers numerical labels to those who prefer numbers and verbal labels to those who prefer words, and accommodates both more and less experienced professionals. © 2007 Witteman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.