Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Pavan Kumar Narapaka, Manisha Singh, Sarasa Meenakshi, Jaseena Cv, Manasa Goudicherla, Krishna Murti, Sameer Dhingra
{"title":"Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Pavan Kumar Narapaka, Manisha Singh, Sarasa Meenakshi, Jaseena Cv, Manasa Goudicherla, Krishna Murti, Sameer Dhingra","doi":"10.18502/ijph.v54i6.18896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to provide comprehensive information on translated versions of the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire, widely used to measure patient involvement in shared decision-making, by combining psychometric validation information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched various databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, along with developer website to gather pertinent literature published until Feb, 2024. This psychometric validation carried out based on item characteristics, content validity, and factor analysis results of individual studies. Our evaluation was based on predetermined cut-off values for item difficulty, discrimination index, Cronbach's alpha, Kaiser Meyer Olkin factor (KMO), Bartlett's test of sphericity, and factor extraction and rotation, confirmatory factor analysis range. The European Social Research Council guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews was employed for synthesis of validation results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis included nine studies with 3090 participants from various countries, and most participants had adequate literacy, and age range was 30-60 yr. Most model versions had a good fit, and all studies reported satisfactory results, except for one study's discrimination index values. The tool's validity was satisfactory. Most of the studies reported a convenient sample was the main limitation, along with recall bias in the final responses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 9-item shared decision-making tool can be used to measure patient involvement in shared decision-making in validated language-respected countries, as proper evaluation procedures reported satisfactory results in the confirmatory analysis models and reliability testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":49173,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Public Health","volume":"54 6","pages":"1179-1192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241734/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i6.18896","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to provide comprehensive information on translated versions of the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire, widely used to measure patient involvement in shared decision-making, by combining psychometric validation information.

Methods: We searched various databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, along with developer website to gather pertinent literature published until Feb, 2024. This psychometric validation carried out based on item characteristics, content validity, and factor analysis results of individual studies. Our evaluation was based on predetermined cut-off values for item difficulty, discrimination index, Cronbach's alpha, Kaiser Meyer Olkin factor (KMO), Bartlett's test of sphericity, and factor extraction and rotation, confirmatory factor analysis range. The European Social Research Council guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews was employed for synthesis of validation results.

Results: The final analysis included nine studies with 3090 participants from various countries, and most participants had adequate literacy, and age range was 30-60 yr. Most model versions had a good fit, and all studies reported satisfactory results, except for one study's discrimination index values. The tool's validity was satisfactory. Most of the studies reported a convenient sample was the main limitation, along with recall bias in the final responses.

Conclusion: The 9-item shared decision-making tool can be used to measure patient involvement in shared decision-making in validated language-respected countries, as proper evaluation procedures reported satisfactory results in the confirmatory analysis models and reliability testing.

9项共同决策问卷的心理测量效度与信度:系统回顾。
背景:本研究旨在结合心理测量验证信息,提供广泛用于测量患者参与共同决策的9项共同决策问卷的翻译版本的综合信息。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus、谷歌Scholar等数据库,并结合开发者网站,收集截止到2024年2月发表的相关文献。本心理测量验证是根据个别研究的项目特征、内容效度和因子分析结果进行的。我们的评估基于项目难度、辨别指数、Cronbach’s alpha、Kaiser Meyer Olkin因子(KMO)、Bartlett’s球形检验、因子提取和旋转、验证性因子分析范围的预定截断值。采用欧洲社会研究理事会关于在系统评价中进行叙述综合的指南来综合验证结果。结果:最终分析包括9项研究,3090名参与者来自不同的国家,大多数参与者具有足够的文化水平,年龄范围为30-60岁。大多数模型版本具有良好的拟合性,除了一项研究的歧视指数值外,所有研究都报告了令人满意的结果。该工具的有效性令人满意。大多数研究报告说,方便的样本是主要的限制,以及最终回答中的回忆偏差。结论:9项共同决策工具可用于衡量患者参与共同决策在经过验证的语言尊重国家,因为适当的评估程序报告了验证性分析模型和可靠性测试的满意结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Iranian Journal of Public Health
Iranian Journal of Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
300
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Iranian Journal of Public Health has been continuously published since 1971, as the only Journal in all health domains, with wide distribution (including WHO in Geneva and Cairo) in two languages (English and Persian). From 2001 issue, the Journal is published only in English language. During the last 41 years more than 2000 scientific research papers, results of health activities, surveys and services, have been published in this Journal. To meet the increasing demand of respected researchers, as of January 2012, the Journal is published monthly. I wish this will assist to promote the level of global knowledge. The main topics that the Journal would welcome are: Bioethics, Disaster and Health, Entomology, Epidemiology, Health and Environment, Health Economics, Health Services, Immunology, Medical Genetics, Mental Health, Microbiology, Nutrition and Food Safety, Occupational Health, Oral Health. We would be very delighted to receive your Original papers, Review Articles, Short communications, Case reports and Scientific Letters to the Editor on the above men­tioned research areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信