Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale

27Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective To examine the psychometric properties of the German version of the 'observing patient involvement' scale (OPTION) by analysing video recordings of primary care consultations dealing with counselling in cardiovascular prevention. Design Cross-sectional assessment of physician-patient interaction by two rater pairs and two experts in shared decision making (SDM). Setting Primary care. Participants Fifteen general practitioners provided 40 videographed consultations. Measurements Video ratings using the OPTION instrument. Results Mean differences on item level between the four raters were quite large. Most items were skewed towards minimal levels of shared decision making. Measures of inter-rater association showed low to moderate associations on item level and high associations on total score level. Cronbach-α of the whole scale based on the data of all four raters is 0.90 and therefore on a high level. An oblique factor analysis revealed two factors, but both factors were highly correlated so we can confirm a one-dimensional structure of the instrument. ROC analyses between the rater total scores and dichotomized expert ratings (SDM yes/no) revealed a good discriminability of the OPTION total score. Physicians with more expertise in shared decision making received higher OPTION ratings. Conclusions The German version of the OPTION scale is reliable at total score level. Some items need further revision in the direction of more concrete, observable behaviour. We were only able to perform a quasi-validation of the scale. Validity issues need further research efforts. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hirsch, O., Keller, H., Müller-Engelmann, M., Gutenbrunner, M. H., Krones, T., & Donner-Banzhoff, N. (2012). Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale. Health Expectations, 15(4), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00689.x

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