Granted informed consent in an online form and were BMS-214662 molecular weight provided with a small incentive upon completion (movie ticket voucher for clinic participants, equivalent dollar amount through PayPal for lab participants). Statistical Analysis Chi-square and 2-sample t tests were used to examine demoProcyanidin B1MedChemExpress Procyanidin B1 graphic differences between the 2 samples. We defined inaccuracy as the difference within person between the estimated proportion and the true proportion (so that positive differences indicate that the estimated one is higher). We reported mean inaccuracy for each graph with confidence intervals, using 1-sample t tests to supplement the confidence intervals with P values. In addition, we computed mean paired differences between estimates of sequential and random graphics for within-person comparisons, accompanied by confidence intervals and paired t tests to supplement the confidence intervals with P values. To express the relationship between the magnitude of the inaccuracy and the true proportion depicted in the graphic, we computed relative inaccuracy (inaccuracy divided by the true proportion). To explore the other factors affecting inaccuracy, we conducted univariate analyses with Pearson correlations for continuous variables (numeracy, education, and age) and analysis of variance for categorical variables (clinic status v. online, sex, and race). The variables were combined in a linear mixed model, with the 6 relative inaccuracies treated as repeated measures within person, true proportion and arrangement as fixed-effects variables, and respondent characteristics as random-effects variables. Predictors were retained at the 0.05 level, and, in addition, likelihood ratio tests were conducted to assess the effect of dropping factors in nested models. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and R version 2.9.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript RESULTS Author ManuscriptThe sample (Table 2) had a mean age of 32.0 y (range, 18?2 y), and was 64 female. The 1st hypothesis was that estimates would differ, within person and across person, according to the stick-figure arrangement. For both arrangements, mean estimates were in general somewhat larger than but fairly close to the true proportions (Table 1); that is, all mean estimates except 1 were within 6 percentage points of the true proportion. Nevertheless, across person, most of the mean estimates and mean inaccuracies (Table 1) and mean relative inaccuracies (Figure 2) were higher for random graphs than for sequential graphs. Within-person estimates for random versus sequential graphics were significantly different from zero for the 6 and 29 graphics, and very few participants gave preciselyMed Decis Making. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 02.Ancker et al.Pagethe same estimate when viewing the same graphic in the different arrangements (Table 3). Thus, arrangement could make the same proportion appear to be of different magnitudes. The 2nd hypothesis was that random graphs would be estimated with less accuracy. Mean inaccuracy was significantly larger than zero for 4 of the 6 random graphs but only for 1 of the 6 sequential graphs (Table 1). In addition, confidence intervals for inaccuracy with the random arrangements were wider than the corresponding intervals for the sequential ones, except at 40 (Table 1). Relative inaccuracy was larger for random graphs than for sequential on.Granted informed consent in an online form and were provided with a small incentive upon completion (movie ticket voucher for clinic participants, equivalent dollar amount through PayPal for lab participants). Statistical Analysis Chi-square and 2-sample t tests were used to examine demographic differences between the 2 samples. We defined inaccuracy as the difference within person between the estimated proportion and the true proportion (so that positive differences indicate that the estimated one is higher). We reported mean inaccuracy for each graph with confidence intervals, using 1-sample t tests to supplement the confidence intervals with P values. In addition, we computed mean paired differences between estimates of sequential and random graphics for within-person comparisons, accompanied by confidence intervals and paired t tests to supplement the confidence intervals with P values. To express the relationship between the magnitude of the inaccuracy and the true proportion depicted in the graphic, we computed relative inaccuracy (inaccuracy divided by the true proportion). To explore the other factors affecting inaccuracy, we conducted univariate analyses with Pearson correlations for continuous variables (numeracy, education, and age) and analysis of variance for categorical variables (clinic status v. online, sex, and race). The variables were combined in a linear mixed model, with the 6 relative inaccuracies treated as repeated measures within person, true proportion and arrangement as fixed-effects variables, and respondent characteristics as random-effects variables. Predictors were retained at the 0.05 level, and, in addition, likelihood ratio tests were conducted to assess the effect of dropping factors in nested models. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and R version 2.9.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript RESULTS Author ManuscriptThe sample (Table 2) had a mean age of 32.0 y (range, 18?2 y), and was 64 female. The 1st hypothesis was that estimates would differ, within person and across person, according to the stick-figure arrangement. For both arrangements, mean estimates were in general somewhat larger than but fairly close to the true proportions (Table 1); that is, all mean estimates except 1 were within 6 percentage points of the true proportion. Nevertheless, across person, most of the mean estimates and mean inaccuracies (Table 1) and mean relative inaccuracies (Figure 2) were higher for random graphs than for sequential graphs. Within-person estimates for random versus sequential graphics were significantly different from zero for the 6 and 29 graphics, and very few participants gave preciselyMed Decis Making. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 02.Ancker et al.Pagethe same estimate when viewing the same graphic in the different arrangements (Table 3). Thus, arrangement could make the same proportion appear to be of different magnitudes. The 2nd hypothesis was that random graphs would be estimated with less accuracy. Mean inaccuracy was significantly larger than zero for 4 of the 6 random graphs but only for 1 of the 6 sequential graphs (Table 1). In addition, confidence intervals for inaccuracy with the random arrangements were wider than the corresponding intervals for the sequential ones, except at 40 (Table 1). Relative inaccuracy was larger for random graphs than for sequential on.