Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire

45Citations
Citations of this article
145Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To translate and assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) for measuring patients' perceptions of how clinicians' performance fits the SDM process. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and Participants: Data were collected in primary care health centres. Patients suffering from chronic diseases and facing a medical decision were included in the study. Measurements: The original German SDM-Q-9 was translated to Spanish using the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-reported measures as the methodological model for Spanish translation. Reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity [exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)] were assessed. Results: The final Spanish version of the SDM-Q-9 was tested in a primary care sample of 540 patients. The SDM-Q-9 presented adequate reliability and acceptable validity. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.885 for the whole scale. EFA showed a two-factorial solution, and for the CFA, the best solution was obtained with a one-dimensional factor with the item 1 excluded, which produced the best indexes of fit. Discussion and Conclusions: The Spanish version of the SDM-Q-9 showed adequate reliability and acceptable validity parameters among primary care patients. The SDM-Q-9 is suitable for use in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries with similarly organized health-care systems. The use of the SDM-Q-9 may contribute to the evaluation of SDM process from the patient's perspective.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

De las Cuevas, C., Perestelo-Perez, L., Rivero-Santana, A., Cebolla-Martí, A., Scholl, I., & Härter, M. (2015). Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. Health Expectations, 18(6), 2143–2153. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12183

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free