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

§ Chung Shan Medical University

Send Message

To: Author

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

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
Reading Preferences
Font Size
Line Spacing
Background
This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

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
  1. 1. 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. British Journal of GeneralPractice, 50, 892-899.
  2. 2. 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. Patient Educ Couns, 43, 5-22.
  3. 3. Vikki Entwistle,Ian Watt (2006). Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Education and Counseling, 63(3), 268-278.
  4. 4. D Kiesler,S Auerbach (2006). Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions. Patient Education and Counseling, 61, 319-341.
  5. 5. 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). Patient Education and Counseling, 63(3), 319-327.
  6. 6. 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). Social Science & Medicine, 44(5), 681-692.
  7. 7. (1982). Making Health Care Decisions: A Report on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship, Volume 1: Report—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. Psychiatric Services, 34(5), 465-b-465.
  8. 8. Barrie Cassileth,Danielle Volckmar,Robert Goodman (1980). The effect of experience on radiation therapy patients' desire for information. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 6(4), 493-496.
  9. 9. William Strull,B Lo,G Charles (1984). Do Patients Want to Participate in Medical Decision Making?. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 252(21), 2990.
  10. 10. L Pendleton,W House (1984). Preferences for treatment approaches in medical care. College students versus diabetic outpatients. Medical Care, 22, 644-646.
  11. 11. R Deber,N Kraetschmer,J Irvine (1996). What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?. Arch Intern Med, 156, 1414-1420.
  12. 12. D Mazur,D Hickam (1997). The influence of physician explanations on patient preferences about future health-care states. Med Decision Making, 17, 56-60.
  13. 13. G Churchill (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
  14. 14. 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 Appl Meas, 6, 80-99.
  15. 15. J Linacre (2011). WINSTEPS [computer program. WINSTEPS [computer program
  16. 16. P Holland,H Wainer (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Differential Item Functioning
  17. 17. B Wright,M Mok (2000). Rasch Measurement Models. Advances in Measurement in Educational Research and Assessment, 1, 85-97.
  18. 18. E Jr,Smith (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas, 3, 205-231.
  19. 19. J Linacre,B Wright (2009). A User's Guide to WINSTEPS. A User's Guide to WINSTEPS
  20. 20. J Keeves,S Alagumalai (1999). New Approaches to Measurement. Advances in Measurement in Educational Research and Assessment, 23-48.
  21. 21. B Wright,J Linacre,J-E Gustafson,P Martin-Lof (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans, 8, 370.
  22. 22. B Wright,M Mok (2000). Rasch Measurement Models. Advances in Measurement in Educational Research and Assessment, 1, 85-97.
  23. 23. B Wright,G Masters (1982). Rating Scale Analysis. Rating Scale Analysis
  24. 24. G Rasch (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV, 321-334.
  25. 25. David Andrich (2004). Controversy and the Rasch Model. Medical Care, 42(1), 7.
  26. 26. P Holland,H Wainer (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Differential Item Functioning
  27. 27. C Shih,W Wang (2009). Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes method with a pure short anchor. Appl Psychol Meas, 33, 184-199.

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. "Developing the First Validity of Shared Medical Decision-Making Questionnaire in Taiwan". Global Journal of Medical Research - K: Interdisciplinary GJMR-K Volume 14 (GJMR Volume 14 Issue K2).

More Citation Formats

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjmra

Print ISSN 0975-5888

e-ISSN 2249-4618

Keywords
Classification
GJMR-K Classification NLMC Code: W 32.5
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date
August 5, 2014

Language
English
Order Article Reprint
Experience 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.

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.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 1.7K
Total Downloads: 92
All Trends

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

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

Chi-Chang Chang
Chi-Chang Chang Chung Shan Medical University