Psychometric Properties of the General Decision-Making Style (GDMS-20) Questionnaire in a Lebanese Arab Adult Sample

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY

International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research Pub Date : 2026-08-28 DOI:10.1002/mpr.70107

Rebecca Rahme, Ziad Azar, Rabih Hallit, Diana Malaeb, Mohamad El Haj, Fouad Sakr, Mariam Dabbous, Sami El Khatib, Sahar Obeid, Feten Fekih-Romdhane, Souheil Hallit

{"title":"Psychometric Properties of the General Decision-Making Style (GDMS-20) Questionnaire in a Lebanese Arab Adult Sample","authors":"Rebecca Rahme, Ziad Azar, Rabih Hallit, Diana Malaeb, Mohamad El Haj, Fouad Sakr, Mariam Dabbous, Sami El Khatib, Sahar Obeid, Feten Fekih-Romdhane, Souheil Hallit","doi":"10.1002/mpr.70107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Decision-making styles reflect stable individual tendencies in approaching choices and have been found to relate to health behaviors, clinical decisions, and psychosocial outcomes. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) questionnaire is a widely used instrument that assesses five distinct decision-making styles. This scale has been translated into many languages but not in Arabic, and has demonstrated robust psychometric properties across multiple cultural contexts. To address the absence of a validated tool for assessing general decision-making styles in Arabic-speaking populations, this study aimed to evaluate the validity, reliability and factor structure of the 20-item version of the GDMS questionnaire.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This cross-sectional study conducted between the months of November and December 2024 included 536 Lebanese Arabic speaking participants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Confirmatory factor analysis results supported the original five factor structure. Internal reliability was satisfactory as evidenced by both McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha: Systematic (<i>ω</i> = 0.76/<i>α</i> = 0.76), Intuitive (<i>ω</i> = 0.58/<i>α</i> = 0.58), Dependent (<i>ω</i> = 0.72/<i>α</i> = 0.72), Avoidant (<i>ω</i> = 0.71/<i>α</i> = 0.70) and Spontaneous (<i>ω</i> = 0.67/<i>α</i> = 0.66). Measurement invariance across sex was confirmed, with significant higher mean dependent decision making found in females compared to males whereas higher mean spontaneous decision-making style was found in males compared to females. No significant difference was found between males and females in terms of systematic, intuitive and avoidant decision-making styles. Higher systematic, dependent and intuitive styles were significantly associated with better work engagement and wellbeing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study provides a reliable and valid Arabic version of the 20-item GDMS for assessing different general decision-making styles in Arabic-speaking populations. The scale has potential applications in several targeted applications in healthcare and research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"35 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.70107","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Decision-making styles reflect stable individual tendencies in approaching choices and have been found to relate to health behaviors, clinical decisions, and psychosocial outcomes. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) questionnaire is a widely used instrument that assesses five distinct decision-making styles. This scale has been translated into many languages but not in Arabic, and has demonstrated robust psychometric properties across multiple cultural contexts. To address the absence of a validated tool for assessing general decision-making styles in Arabic-speaking populations, this study aimed to evaluate the validity, reliability and factor structure of the 20-item version of the GDMS questionnaire.

Methods

This cross-sectional study conducted between the months of November and December 2024 included 536 Lebanese Arabic speaking participants.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis results supported the original five factor structure. Internal reliability was satisfactory as evidenced by both McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha: Systematic (ω = 0.76/α = 0.76), Intuitive (ω = 0.58/α = 0.58), Dependent (ω = 0.72/α = 0.72), Avoidant (ω = 0.71/α = 0.70) and Spontaneous (ω = 0.67/α = 0.66). Measurement invariance across sex was confirmed, with significant higher mean dependent decision making found in females compared to males whereas higher mean spontaneous decision-making style was found in males compared to females. No significant difference was found between males and females in terms of systematic, intuitive and avoidant decision-making styles. Higher systematic, dependent and intuitive styles were significantly associated with better work engagement and wellbeing.

Conclusion

This study provides a reliable and valid Arabic version of the 20-item GDMS for assessing different general decision-making styles in Arabic-speaking populations. The scale has potential applications in several targeted applications in healthcare and research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一般决策风格问卷（GDMS-20）在黎巴嫩阿拉伯成人样本中的心理测量特征。

背景：决策风格反映了个人在接近选择时的稳定倾向，并被发现与健康行为、临床决策和社会心理结果有关。一般决策风格（GDMS）问卷是一个广泛使用的工具，评估五种不同的决策风格。该量表已被翻译成多种语言，但没有翻译成阿拉伯语，并在多种文化背景下显示出强大的心理测量特性。为了解决缺乏有效的工具来评估阿拉伯语人群的一般决策风格的问题，本研究旨在评估20个项目版本的GDMS问卷的效度、信度和因素结构。方法：这项横断面研究在2024年11月至12月期间进行，包括536名黎巴嫩阿拉伯语参与者。结果：验证性因子分析结果支持原五因子结构。麦当劳ω和Cronbach's α的内部信度均令人满意：系统性（ω = 0.76/α = 0.76）、直觉性（ω = 0.58/α = 0.58）、依赖性（ω = 0.72/α = 0.72）、回避性（ω = 0.71/α = 0.70）和自发性（ω = 0.67/α = 0.66）。性别间的测量不变性得到了证实，女性的平均依赖型决策明显高于男性，而男性的平均自发性决策风格明显高于女性。系统决策风格、直觉决策风格和回避决策风格在男性和女性之间均无显著差异。更高的系统性、依赖性和直觉型风格与更好的工作投入和幸福感显著相关。结论：本研究提供了一个可靠有效的阿拉伯语版本的20项GDMS，用于评估阿拉伯语人群的不同一般决策风格。该秤在医疗保健和研究领域的几个目标应用中具有潜在的应用前景。

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

International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

6.50%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations. MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted. MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.