Developing the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan

Developing the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan

Chi-Chang Chang

Contact

Chung Shan Medical University

Developing the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

32D61

Developing the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Due to a lack of valid Taiwanese instruments measuring Shared Medical Decision-making (SMDM) in Taiwan. The purpose of the study is to investigate the reliability and validity of the Shared Medical Decision-making process. Total 350 patients were randomly recruited from a medical centre in Taiwan. As a theoretical basis steps of the SMDM process were defined in an expert panel. Item formulation was then conducted according to the Delphi method and a pool of 16 items was constructed. In addition, the Winstep software was used to examine whether the data fit Rasch test model. Items with outfit or infit MNSQs (mean square errors) not in the range between 0.77 and 1.30 are usually deemed as potential misfits. Successive Rasch analyses were performed until a final set of items was obtained. After eliminating 1 item the remaining 15 form a unidimensional scale with an acceptable reliability for person measures 0.77 and very good reliability for item difficulties 0.97. Analysis of subgroups revealed a different use of items in different conditions. Taiwanese Shared Medical Decision-making Questionnaire (SMDMQ) is a 15 items normative instrument. In addition, a theory-driven instrument to measure the process of SMDM has been developed and validated by use of a rigorous method revealing first promising results. Yet the ceiling effects require the addition of more discriminating items, and the different use of items in different conditions demands an in depth analysis.

References

27 Cites in Article

Reference Format

G Elwyn,A Edwards,P Kinnersley (2000). Shared decision-making and the concept of equipoise: Defining the 'competences' of involving patients in health care choices.
G Elwyn,A Edwards,S Mowle,M Wensing,C Wilkinson,P Kinnersley (2001). Measuring the Involvement of patients in shared decision-Making: a systematic review of instruments.
Vikki Entwistle,Ian Watt (2006). Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework.
D Kiesler,S Auerbach (2006). Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions.
D Simon,G Schorr,M Wirtz,A Vodermaier,C Caspari,B Neuner,C Spies,T Krones,H Keller,A Edwards,A Loh,M Härter (2006). Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q).
Cathy Charles,Amiram Gafni,Tim Whelan (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).
(1982). <b>Making Health Care Decisions: A Report on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship, Volume 1: Report</b>—President's Commission for the Study of Ethics Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Washington, D.C., 1982, 196 pages, paperbound, stock number 040-000-00459-9. Available for $6 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Barrie Cassileth,Danielle Volckmar,Robert Goodman (1980). The effect of experience on radiation therapy patients' desire for information.
William Strull,B Lo,G Charles (1984). Do Patients Want to Participate in Medical Decision Making?.
L Pendleton,W House (1984). Preferences for treatment approaches in medical care. College students versus diabetic outpatients.
R Deber,N Kraetschmer,J Irvine (1996). What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?.
D Mazur,D Hickam (1997). The influence of physician explanations on patient preferences about future health-care states.
G Churchill (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.
R Waugh,E Chapman (2005). An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis true-score theory) and Rasch measurement: what is the difference? Which method is better?.
J Linacre (2011). WINSTEPS [computer program.
P Holland,H Wainer (1993). Differential Item Functioning.
B Wright,M Mok (2000). Rasch Measurement Models.
E Jr,Smith (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals.
J Linacre,B Wright (2009). A User's Guide to WINSTEPS.
J Keeves,S Alagumalai (1999). New Approaches to Measurement.
B Wright,J Linacre,J-E Gustafson,P Martin-Lof (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values.
B Wright,M Mok (2000). Rasch Measurement Models.
B Wright,G Masters (1982). Rating Scale Analysis.
G Rasch (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology.
David Andrich (2004). Controversy and the Rasch Model.
P Holland,H Wainer (1993). Differential Item Functioning.
C Shih,W Wang (2009). Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes method with a pure short anchor.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Chi-Chang Chang. 2014. \u201cDeveloping the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan\u201d. Global Journal of Medical Research - K: Interdisciplinary GJMR-K Volume 14 (GJMR Volume 14 Issue K2): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJMR Volume 14 Issue K2
Pg. 9- 15

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjmra

Print ISSN 0975-5888

e-ISSN 2249-4618

Keywords

rasch test model reliability shared medical decision-making validity

Submission ReceivedDecember 9, 2013
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 5, 2014
Published January 15, 2014

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

August 5, 2014

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 141

Country: Taiwan

Subject: Global Journal of Medical Research - K: Interdisciplinary

Authors: Chi-Chang Chang (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 124

Total Views (Real + Logic): 4442

Total Downloads (simulated): 2409

Publish Date: 2014 08, Tue

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 44 views
Month 2: 43 views
Month 3: 31 views
Month 4: 50 views
Month 5: 67 views
Month 6: 41 views
Month 7: 60 views
Month 8: 19 views
Month 9: 38 views
Month 10: 53 views
Month 11: 26 views
Month 12: 17 views
Month 13: 44 views
Month 14: 34 views
Month 15: 45 views
Month 16: 18 views
Month 17: 23 views
Month 18: 37 views
Month 19: 33 views
Month 20: 17 views
Month 21: 33 views
Month 22: 21 views
Month 23: 24 views
Month 24: 28 views
Month 25: 35 views
Month 26: 38 views
Month 27: 42 views
Month 28: 30 views
Month 29: 37 views
Month 30: 34 views
Month 31: 36 views
Month 32: 27 views
Month 33: 31 views
Month 34: 23 views
Month 35: 26 views
Month 36: 26 views
Month 37: 30 views
Month 38: 24 views
Month 39: 17 views
Month 40: 26 views
Month 41: 17 views
Month 42: 39 views
Month 43: 42 views
Month 44: 35 views
Month 45: 23 views
Month 46: 38 views
Month 47: 34 views
Month 48: 25 views
Month 49: 28 views
Month 50: 35 views
Month 51: 36 views
Month 52: 26 views
Month 53: 31 views
Month 54: 24 views
Month 55: 34 views
Month 56: 34 views
Month 57: 39 views
Month 58: 37 views
Month 59: 22 views
Month 60: 33 views
Month 61: 14 views
Month 62: 18 views
Month 63: 33 views
Month 64: 20 views
Month 65: 27 views
Month 66: 25 views
Month 67: 27 views
Month 68: 25 views
Month 69: 24 views
Month 70: 31 views
Month 71: 28 views
Month 72: 26 views
Month 73: 45 views
Month 74: 22 views
Month 75: 39 views
Month 76: 16 views
Month 77: 30 views
Month 78: 34 views
Month 79: 27 views
Month 80: 20 views
Month 81: 43 views
Month 82: 27 views
Month 83: 41 views
Month 84: 33 views
Month 85: 32 views
Month 86: 27 views
Month 87: 18 views
Month 88: 44 views
Month 89: 37 views
Month 90: 16 views
Month 91: 33 views
Month 92: 26 views
Month 93: 14 views
Month 94: 18 views
Month 95: 37 views
Month 96: 39 views
Month 97: 21 views
Month 98: 43 views
Month 99: 20 views
Month 100: 40 views
Month 101: 20 views
Month 102: 40 views
Month 103: 17 views
Month 104: 39 views
Month 105: 31 views
Month 106: 40 views
Month 107: 32 views
Month 108: 17 views
Month 109: 17 views
Month 110: 46 views
Month 111: 39 views
Month 112: 28 views
Month 113: 33 views
Month 114: 35 views
Month 115: 20 views
Month 116: 38 views
Month 117: 21 views
Month 118: 39 views
Month 119: 15 views
Month 120: 34 views
Month 121: 31 views
Month 122: 34 views
Month 123: 37 views
Month 124: 23 views
Month 125: 24 views
Month 126: 38 views
Month 127: 11 views
Month 128: 26 views
Month 129: 32 views
Month 130: 13 views
Month 131: 39 views
Month 132: 33 views
Month 133: 47 views
Month 134: 29 views
Month 135: 18 views
Month 136: 31 views
Month 137: 43 views
Month 138: 34 views
Month 139: 28 views
Month 140: 47 views
Month 141: 38 views

Total Views: 4442

Total Downloads: 2409

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]