BACKGROUND: While there has been a clear move towards shared decision-making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM-related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects. OBJECTIVE: To test convergent validity of the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) by comparing it to the OPTION Scale. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected in outpatient care practices. Patients suffering from chronic diseases and facing a medical decision were included in the study. METHODS: Consultations were evaluated using the OPTION Scale. Patients completed the SDM-Q-9 after the consultation. First, the internal consistency of both scales and the inter-rater reliability of the OPTION Scale were calculated. To analyse the convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9, correlation between the patient (SDM-Q-9) and expert ratings (OPTION Scale) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 21 physicians provided analysable data of consultations with 63 patients. Analyses revealed good internal consistency of the SDM-Q-9 and limited internal consistency of the OPTION Scale. Inter-rater reliability of the latter was less than optimal. Association between the total scores of both instruments was weak with a Spearman correlation of r = 0.19 and did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: By the use of the OPTION Scale convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 could not be established. Several possible explanations for this result are discussed. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the measurement of SDM remains challenging.
BACKGROUND: While there has been a clear move towards shared decision-making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM-related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects. OBJECTIVE: To test convergent validity of the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) by comparing it to the OPTION Scale. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected in outpatient care practices. Patients suffering from chronic diseases and facing a medical decision were included in the study. METHODS: Consultations were evaluated using the OPTION Scale. Patients completed the SDM-Q-9 after the consultation. First, the internal consistency of both scales and the inter-rater reliability of the OPTION Scale were calculated. To analyse the convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9, correlation between the patient (SDM-Q-9) and expert ratings (OPTION Scale) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 21 physicians provided analysable data of consultations with 63 patients. Analyses revealed good internal consistency of the SDM-Q-9 and limited internal consistency of the OPTION Scale. Inter-rater reliability of the latter was less than optimal. Association between the total scores of both instruments was weak with a Spearman correlation of r = 0.19 and did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: By the use of the OPTION Scale convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 could not be established. Several possible explanations for this result are discussed. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the measurement of SDM remains challenging.
Authors: D Simon; G Schorr; M Wirtz; A Vodermaier; C Caspari; B Neuner; C Spies; T Krones; H Keller; A Edwards; A Loh; M Härter Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2006-07-26
Authors: Dominick L Frosch; Benjamin W Moulton; Richard M Wexler; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Robert J Volk; Carrie A Levin Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes Date: 2011-04-29
Authors: Paula Jimenez-Fonseca; Urbano Lorenzo-Seva; Pere Joan Ferrando; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Carmen Beato; Teresa García; María Del Mar Muñoz; Avinash Ramchandani; Ismael Ghanem; Alejandra Rodríguez-Capote; Carlos Jara; Caterina Calderon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Wesley C Holland; Katherine M Hunold; Sowmya A Mangipudi; Alison M Rittenberg; Natalie Yosipovitch; Timothy F Platts-Mills Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juan P Brito; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Michael R Gionfriddo; Naykky Singh Ospina; Spyridoula Maraka; Diana S Dean; M Regina Castro; Regina M Castro; Vahab Fatourechi; Hossein Gharib; Marius N Stan; Megan E Branda; Rebecca S Bahn; Victor M Montori Journal: Thyroid Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Carlos De las Cuevas; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez; Amado Rivero-Santana; Ausiàs Cebolla-Martí; Isabelle Scholl; Martin Härter Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: K D Valentine; Brittney Mancini; Ha Vo; Suzanne Brodney; Carol Cosenza; Michael J Barry; Karen R Sepucha Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche; Arwen H Pieterse; Pieter M Kroonenberg; Isabelle Scholl; Trudy van der Weijden; Gre P M Luyten; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Henk den Ouden; Ingrid V E Carlier; Irene M van Vliet; Frans G Zitman; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 3.240