Bal et al. 2021 (JGIM systematic review) — "rare" interpretations 7-21%, "common" 34-71%
Summary
Claim: Bal et al. (2021, Journal of General Internal Medicine, systematic review) — average interpretations of:
- "Rare" ranged 7-21% across studies.
- "Common" ranged 34-71% across studies.
Source: Bal et al. 2021 JGIM. Peer-reviewed systematic review.
Confidence: Verified.
Why this matters for Candid: Independent corroboration of Budescu et al. 2009/2014 — IPCC verbal terms interpreted REGRESSIVELY; numeric pairing fixes and Knapp et al. 2004 — EU verbal frequency labels cause dramatic overestimation of medical risk. The huge variance (3x for "rare," 2x for "common") proves that unanchored verbal labels are not just slightly wrong — they are read with such variance that the same word means materially different things to different readers. The widget must anchor every tier word with definition + visual position + drivers.