Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity
Standard
Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity. / Scholl, Isabelle; Kriston, Levente; Dirmaier, Jörg; Härter, Martin.
In: HEALTH EXPECT, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.02.2015, p. 137-50.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity
AU - Scholl, Isabelle
AU - Kriston, Levente
AU - Dirmaier, Jörg
AU - Härter, Martin
N1 - © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2015/2/1
Y1 - 2015/2/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1111/hex.12022
DO - 10.1111/hex.12022
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 23176071
VL - 18
SP - 137
EP - 150
JO - HEALTH EXPECT
JF - HEALTH EXPECT
SN - 1369-6513
IS - 1
ER -