Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Danish Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire - Patient Version (SDM-Q-9-Pat)

Mette Hulbæk, Marianne J Jørgensen, Hanne Mainz, Regner Birkelund, Jesper Bo Nielson, Birgit Debrabant, Jette Primdahl

Abstract


Aims and objectives: No validated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in Danish is available. The aim of the study was to translate, culturally adapt and psychometrically test a Danish version of the SDM-Q-9 in 2 patient groups: elderly patients from outpatient gynecology clinics and a group of younger patients from an outpatient sports clinic.

Method: The SDM-Q-9, patient version, was translated into Danish through a standardized forward-backward translation performed by 4 independent translators, followed by cognitive interviewing of 11 outpatients from the 2 patient groups. The process was adjusted by an expert panel. The psychometric testing was performed at 5 Danish hospital departments. Reliability (internal consistency) was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was determined by confirmatory and explanatory factor analysis.

Results: A total of 268 patients (218 gynecological and 50 knee patients) were included. The scale had high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94). A high ceiling effect was found (44% with the highest rating). None of the tested models in the confirmatory analysis had a good fit. The explanatory factor analysis for the whole sample yielded a unidimensional factor, which explained 91% of variances with high factor loadings of more than 0.7.

Conclusion: The Danish version of the SDM-Q-9 is a well-accepted, reliable and - despite the challenges of a high ceiling effect - valid instrument in the tested populations. Further psychometrical testing in other populations is necessary as well as research with other convergent instruments to demonstrate consistency over time and between patient groups.

Keywords


Anterior cruciate ligament injuries, clinical decision-making, factor analysis, patient involvement, patient perspectives, person-centered healthcare, psychometric testing, treatment options, urogynecology

Full Text:

PDF

References


Charles, C., Gafni, A. & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44 (5) 681-692.

Makoul, G. & Clayman, M.L. (2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 60 (3) 301-312.

Légaré, F., Elwyn, G., Fishbein, M., Fremont, P., Frosch, D., Gagnon, M.P., Kenny, D.A., Labrecque, M., Stacey, D., St-Jacques, S. & van der Weijden, T. (2008). Translating shared decision-making into health care clinical practices: proof of concepts. Implementation Science: IS 3,2.

Scholl, I., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Sepucha, K., Elwyn, G., Légaré F., Harter, M. & Dirmaier, J. (2011). Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 105 (4) 313-324.

Dahl Steffensen, K., Hjelholt Baker, V. & Vinter, M.M. (2017). Implementing shared decision making in Denmark: First steps and future focus areas. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 123-124, 36-40.

Simon, D., Schorr, G., Wirtz, M., Vodermaier, A., Caspari, C., Neuner, B., Spies, C., Krones, T., Keller, H., Edwards, A., Loh, A. & Härter, M. (2006). Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Education and Counseling 63 (3) 319-327.

Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Kinnersley, P. & Grol, R. (2000). Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice 50 (460) 892-899.

Kriston, L., Scholl, I., Holzel, L., Simon, D., Loh, A. & Harter, M. (2010). The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Education and Counseling 80 (1) 94-99.

Kasper, J., Heesen, C., Kopke, S., Fulcher, G. & Geiger, F. (2011). Patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement differ. Validation study on inter-relating measures for shared decision making. PloS One 6 (10) e26255.

De las Cuevas, C., Perestelo-Perez, L., Rivero-Santana, A., Cebolla-Marti, 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.

Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S., Pieterse, A.H., Kroonenberg, P.M., Scholl, I., van der Weijden, T., Luyten, G.P., Kruitwagen, R.F., den Ouden, H., Carlier, I.V., van Viet, I.M., Zitman, F.G. & Stigglebout, A.M. (2015). Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care. PloS One 10 (7) e0132158.

Zisman-Ilani, Y., Roe, D., Scholl, I., Härter, M. & Karnieli-Miller, O. (2017). Shared Decision Making During Active Psychiatric Hospitalization: Assessment and Psychometric Properties. Health Communication 32 (1) 126-130.

Ballesteros, J., Moral, E., Brieva, L., Ruiz-Beato, E., Prefasi, D. & Maurino, J. (2017). Psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis: item response theory modelling and confirmatory factor analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 15 (1) 79.

World Health Organization: Process of translation and adaption of instruments. WHO, Geneve, 2007. Available at: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. (Accessed December 27, 2017.)

Terwee, C.B., Bot, S.D., de Boer, M.R., van der Windt, D.A., Knol, D.L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L.M. & de Vet, H.C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (1) 34-42.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16, 297-334.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London: Academic Press, Inc.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31-36.

Rencher, A.C. & Christensen, W.F. (2012). Methods of multivariate analysis. 3rd edn. Hoboken, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1) 1-55.

Ferguson, G.A. (1941). The factorial interpretation of test difficulty. Psychometrika 6 (5) 323-329.

Satorra, A. & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research, pp. 399-419. von Eye, A. & Clogg, C.C. (Eds). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kolenikov, S. & Angeles, G. (2004). The Use of Discrete Data in PCA: Theory, Simultations, and Applications to Socioeconomic Indices. Available at: https://www.measureevaluation.org/resourses/publications/wp-04-85.

Doherr, H., Christalle, E., Kriston, L., Härter, M. & Scholl, I. (2017). Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review. PloS One 12 (3) e0173904.

Streiner, D.L., Norman, G.R. & Cairney, J. (2015). Health Measurement Scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Preston, C. & Colman, A. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 104, 1-15.

Dell-Kuster, S., Sanjuan, E., Todorov, A., Weber, H., Heberer, M. & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales. BMC Medical Research Methodology 14, 96.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v6i3.1529

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.