Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care

S. Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, A.H. Pieterse, P.M. Kroonenberg, I. Scholl, T. van der Weijden, G.P.M. Luyten, R.F.P.M. Kruitwagen, H. den Ouden, I.V.E. Carlier, I.M. van Vliet, F.G. Zitman, A.M. Stiggelbout

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose

The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics.

Methods

Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used.

Results

Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded.

Conclusion

The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-onstruct and its measurement.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0132158
Number of pages15
JournalPLOS ONE
Volume10
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jul 2015

Keywords

  • HEALTH-CARE

Cite this

Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S., Pieterse, A. H., Kroonenberg, P. M., Scholl, I., van der Weijden, T., Luyten, G. P. M., Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M., den Ouden, H., Carlier, I. V. E., van Vliet, I. M., Zitman, F. G., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2015). Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care. PLOS ONE, 10(7), [e0132158]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132158