“Doctor, I disagree”

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION

Journal of Argumentation in Context Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI:10.1075/jaic.18018.lab

Nanon H. M. Labrie

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“医生，我不同意”

摘要在医疗咨询中，可能会出现分歧。然而，患者与医生进行讨论以解决这些分歧的倾向可能会有所不同。本研究旨在开发和验证一种测量工具，用于评估全科医学中的患者争论性（P-ARG）。从论证的实用主义辩证理论和因凡特和兰彻（1982）的论证量表出发，编制了量表项目，并对183名参与者进行了管理。采用主成分分析法对其量表结构进行了探讨。此外，还评估了收敛有效性和并发有效性。结果证实了双因素量表结构，并为其有效性提供了初步支持。虽然还需要进一步完善，但（初步）P-ARG量表可用于医学论证和健康传播学者的研究目的，例如，探索医生提供的论证、患者的观点和患者的论证之间的关系。

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

Journal of Argumentation in Context COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.