Reasoning
Icon Array Task
Also called: icon array risk communication task, pictograph risk comprehension
Measure risk understanding across icon arrays, numbers and bars, with exact-number answers, comparisons and perceived-risk ratings.
8-12 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 91
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
Which option has the smaller risk?
100 cases in each option
What it measures
Measure how people understand risks shown as icon arrays, numbers or bars. Participants answer exact-number and comparison questions about 12 imaginary everyday examples, then rate how large option A's risk feels in each.
Constructs
- Risk comprehension
- Graphical numeracy
- Perceived risk
Research uses
- Risk communication research
- Numeracy research
- Within-study display comparisons
How the paradigm works
Risk displays let researchers compare how people read the same kind of information in different forms. Icon-array research measures both accuracy and perceived risk (Galesic and colleagues, 2009), and compares icons and bars with numerical information (Garcia-Retamero and Galesic, 2010).
More about the paradigm
This task uses 12 original, imaginary everyday examples. Each shows two risks out of 100, as icons, numbers or bars. Researchers can choose one format throughout or use four examples in each format. The session seed assigns formats and orders examples. Participants type the count for option A, choose which risk is smaller and rate how large A’s risk feels. All displays remain visible and there is no time limit. One practice example gives feedback.
Scores
- Exact-number accuracy%
- Share of completed items with the exact count for A, including blank answers as incorrect.
- Higher means more exact answers
- Gist accuracy%
- Share of completed items with the correct smaller-risk comparison, including equal risks.
- Higher means more correct comparisons
- Mean perceived riskpoints
- Mean rating of how large option A’s risk feels, from 0 to 100.
- Higher means the risk felt larger
- Icon arrays: exact-number accuracy%
- Share of exact counts correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more exact answers
- Icon arrays: gist accuracy%
- Share of smaller-risk comparisons correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more correct comparisons
- Icon arrays: perceived riskpoints
- Mean perceived risk rating, from 0 to 100. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means the risk felt larger
- Numbers: exact-number accuracy%
- Share of exact counts correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more exact answers
- Numbers: gist accuracy%
- Share of smaller-risk comparisons correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more correct comparisons
- Numbers: perceived riskpoints
- Mean perceived risk rating, from 0 to 100. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means the risk felt larger
- Bars: exact-number accuracy%
- Share of exact counts correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more exact answers
- Bars: gist accuracy%
- Share of smaller-risk comparisons correct. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means more correct comparisons
- Bars: perceived riskpoints
- Mean perceived risk rating, from 0 to 100. Empty when this format was not shown.
- Higher means the risk felt larger
- Median time per examplems
- Median sum of answer, comparison and rating times, using only items whose three times are each at least 100 ms.
- Describes pace, not a speed score
- Answers under 100 mscount
- Number of answer, comparison or rating responses under 100 ms.
- Expected to be 0
- Blank number answerscount
- Completed items with a blank exact-number answer.
- Describes unanswered questions
- Number questions answeredcount
- Completed items with a nonblank exact-number answer.
- At least 6 required for interpretation
- Examples completedcount
- Items with all three response stages completed.
- 12 in a full run
Use and evidence
91 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 36% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 258 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 26 |
| 2024 | 26 |
| 2023 | 10 |
| 2022 | 14 |
| 2021 | 15 |
| 2020 | 13 |
| 2019 | 13 |
| 2018 | 16 |
| 2017 | 14 |
| 2016 | 11 |
| 2015 | 6 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 5 |
| 2012 | 7 |
| 2011 | 6 |
| 2010 | 8 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 12
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Original hypothetical everyday items; no personal-risk claims or published norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Examples
- 12 original imaginary everyday scenarios, each showing risks for options A and B out of 100. Four have A lower, four B lower and four equal. No personal health risks are described.
- Formats
- Icon arrays, numbers, bars or mixed formats. The standard mixed session uses 4 examples per format. Icons are 10 by 10 squares; bars show the full 0 to 100 scale and the count. Format assignment and example order come from the session seed and are recorded.
- Answers
- For every example: type the count for A, choose A, B or equal for the smaller risk, then rate how large A’s risk feels from 0 to 100. The display stays visible, with no time limit and no feedback in the test.
- Practice
- 1 separate example with feedback on the exact count and comparison. The rating has no correct answer. A 1000 ms lead-in follows practice.
- Scores
- Exact-number accuracy is primary. Gist accuracy and mean perceived risk are reported overall and by format. Accuracy is the proportion correct, from 0 to 1. Missing format scores stay empty.
- Languages
- Original scenarios and instructions in all eight languages. Compare sessions with the same language and format setting.
These original everyday items study risk displays. They are not a published scale, and no published norms are applied. Mixed-format differences also reflect the examples assigned to each format; compare them across participants.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: icon_array_risk_item from the run with the most completed items, latest on ties. Exact-number answers have no chance level. Fewer than 6 exact-number answers invalidate; an incomplete run is flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half of four or more answers invalidate. A hidden tab is flagged.
Why these rules
These are original untimed numeric questions and risk judgments. Low accuracy is a result, not evidence of disengagement; a rating has no correct answer. At least half the items must be answered to interpret accuracy. Extremely fast answers cannot follow a new display. A hidden tab may allow outside help, so it is flagged.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Risk display | Mixed formats | Mixed formats, Icon arrays, Numbers, Bars |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Icon Array Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Galesic, Garcia-Retamero & Gigerenzer, 2009; Garcia-Retamero & Galesic, 2010), with the standard settings (risk display: Mixed formats). The main score was exact-number accuracy (share of completed items with the exact count for A, including blank answers as incorrect).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28(2), 210-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014474
- Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1019-1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031
Source papers
- Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28(2), 210-216.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Icon Array Task take?
About 8 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Exact-number accuracy, Gist accuracy, Mean perceived risk, Icon arrays: exact-number accuracy, Icon arrays: gist accuracy, Icon arrays: perceived risk, Numbers: exact-number accuracy, Numbers: gist accuracy, Numbers: perceived risk, Bars: exact-number accuracy, Bars: gist accuracy, Bars: perceived risk, Median time per example, Answers under 100 ms, Blank number answers, Number questions answered and Examples completed. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Icon Array Task used in research?
91 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 36% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 258 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Icon Array Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Risk display (Mixed formats, Icon arrays, Numbers, Bars). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.