Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review
-
Pavan Kumar Narapaka
,
Manisha Singh
,
Sarasa Meenakshi
,
Jaseena C V
,
Manasa Goudicharla
,
Krishna Murti
,
Sameer Dhingra
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.
1. Jacobs S, Davies N, Butterick KL, et al (2023). Shared decision-making for children with medical complexity in community health services: a scoping review. BMJ Paediatr Open, 7 (1): e001866.
2. Egan C, Naughton C, Caples M, Mulcahy H (2023). Shared decision‐making with adults transitioning to long‐term care: A scoping review. Int J Older Peo-ple Nurs, 18(1):e12518.
3. Hoffmann TC, Legare F, Simmons MB, et al (2014). Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust, 201 (1):35-39.
4. Lu C, Li X, Yang K (2019). Trends in shared decision-making studies from 2009 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health, 7:384.
5. Alrawiai S, Aljaffary A, Al-Rayes S, et al (2020). The OPTION scale: measuring patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Multidiscip Healthc, 13:1337-1346.
6. Ismail MA, Midin M (2021). Shared decision-making and role preference among patients with schizophrenia in malaysia: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry, 12:680800.
7. Driever EM, Stiggelbout AM, Brand PL (2022). Patients’ preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists. Patient Educ Couns, 105 (8):2702-2707.
8. Schoenfeld EM, Goff SL, Downs G, et al (2018). A Qualitative analysis of patients’ perceptions of shared decision making in the emergency department:“let me know i have a choice”. Acad Emerg Med, 25 (7):716-727.
9. Gärtner FR, Bomhof-Roordink H, Smith IP, et al (2018). The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS One, 13 (2):e0191747.
10. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, et al (2010). The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns, 80 (1):94-99.
11. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, et al (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns, 88 (2):284-290.
12. Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, et al (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.
13. Glass KE, Wills CE, Holloman C, et al (2012). Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey. Patient Educ Couns, 88 (1):100-105.
14. Rencz F, Tamási B, Brodszky V, et al (2019). Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary. Eur J Health Econ, 20(Suppl 1):43-55.
15. Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, et al (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.
16. Souza ACd, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EdB (2017). Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude, 26:649-659.
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372:n71.
18. Ferketich S (1990). Internal consistency estimates of reliability. Res Nurs Health, 13 (6):437-440.
19. Taber KS (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48:1273-1296.
20. Karami H (2015). Exploratory factor analysis as a construct validation tool:(Mis) applications in applied linguistics research. TESOL Journal, 6 (3):476-498.
21. Kaiser HF (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35:401–415.
22. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010). Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Technometrics, 15 (3).
23. Alvarado-Villa GE, Moncayo-Rizzo JD, Gallardo-Rumbea JA (2019). Spanish validation endorsement of SDM-Q-9, a new approach. BMC Public Health, 19:106.
24. De las Cuevas C, Perestelo‐Perez L, Rivero‐Santana A, et al (2015). Validation of the S panish version of the 9‐item S hared D ecision‐M aking Q uestionnaire. Health Expect, 18 (6):2143-2153.
25. Alzubaidi H, Hussein A, Mc Namara K, Scholl I (2019). Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: the entire process from translation to validation. BMJ Open, 9 (4):e026672.
26. de Filippis R, Aloi M, Pilieci AM, et al (2022). Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): validation of the Italian version in a large psychiatric clinical sample. Clin Neuropsychiatry, 19 (4):264-271.
27. Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, et al (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire and its association with decision conflict and patient factors in Japanese primary care. JMA J, 3 (3):208-215.
28. Baicus C, Balanescu P, Gurghean A, et al (2019). Romanian version of SDM-Q-9 validation in Internal Medicine and Cardiology setting: a multicentric cross-sectional study. Rom J Intern Med, 57 (2):195-200.
29. Narapaka PK, Singh M, Murti K, Dhingra S (2024). Validity and reliability of the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) among Indian oncology patients in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health, 27:101626.
30. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. ed. Sage publications.
31. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Phillips SM (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. ed. Mayfield Publishing Co.
32. Cronbach LJ (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3):297-334.
33. Ubbink DT, van Asbeck EV, Aarts JW, et al (2022). Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making. Patient Educ Couns, 105 (7):2475-2479.
34. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Haerter M (2015). Comparing the nine‐item Shared Decision‐Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale–an attempt to establish convergent validity. Health Expect, 18 (1):137-150.
2. Egan C, Naughton C, Caples M, Mulcahy H (2023). Shared decision‐making with adults transitioning to long‐term care: A scoping review. Int J Older Peo-ple Nurs, 18(1):e12518.
3. Hoffmann TC, Legare F, Simmons MB, et al (2014). Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust, 201 (1):35-39.
4. Lu C, Li X, Yang K (2019). Trends in shared decision-making studies from 2009 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health, 7:384.
5. Alrawiai S, Aljaffary A, Al-Rayes S, et al (2020). The OPTION scale: measuring patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Multidiscip Healthc, 13:1337-1346.
6. Ismail MA, Midin M (2021). Shared decision-making and role preference among patients with schizophrenia in malaysia: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry, 12:680800.
7. Driever EM, Stiggelbout AM, Brand PL (2022). Patients’ preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists. Patient Educ Couns, 105 (8):2702-2707.
8. Schoenfeld EM, Goff SL, Downs G, et al (2018). A Qualitative analysis of patients’ perceptions of shared decision making in the emergency department:“let me know i have a choice”. Acad Emerg Med, 25 (7):716-727.
9. Gärtner FR, Bomhof-Roordink H, Smith IP, et al (2018). The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS One, 13 (2):e0191747.
10. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, et al (2010). The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns, 80 (1):94-99.
11. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, et al (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns, 88 (2):284-290.
12. Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, et al (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.
13. Glass KE, Wills CE, Holloman C, et al (2012). Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey. Patient Educ Couns, 88 (1):100-105.
14. Rencz F, Tamási B, Brodszky V, et al (2019). Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary. Eur J Health Econ, 20(Suppl 1):43-55.
15. Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, et al (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.
16. Souza ACd, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EdB (2017). Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude, 26:649-659.
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372:n71.
18. Ferketich S (1990). Internal consistency estimates of reliability. Res Nurs Health, 13 (6):437-440.
19. Taber KS (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48:1273-1296.
20. Karami H (2015). Exploratory factor analysis as a construct validation tool:(Mis) applications in applied linguistics research. TESOL Journal, 6 (3):476-498.
21. Kaiser HF (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35:401–415.
22. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010). Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Technometrics, 15 (3).
23. Alvarado-Villa GE, Moncayo-Rizzo JD, Gallardo-Rumbea JA (2019). Spanish validation endorsement of SDM-Q-9, a new approach. BMC Public Health, 19:106.
24. De las Cuevas C, Perestelo‐Perez L, Rivero‐Santana A, et al (2015). Validation of the S panish version of the 9‐item S hared D ecision‐M aking Q uestionnaire. Health Expect, 18 (6):2143-2153.
25. Alzubaidi H, Hussein A, Mc Namara K, Scholl I (2019). Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: the entire process from translation to validation. BMJ Open, 9 (4):e026672.
26. de Filippis R, Aloi M, Pilieci AM, et al (2022). Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): validation of the Italian version in a large psychiatric clinical sample. Clin Neuropsychiatry, 19 (4):264-271.
27. Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, et al (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire and its association with decision conflict and patient factors in Japanese primary care. JMA J, 3 (3):208-215.
28. Baicus C, Balanescu P, Gurghean A, et al (2019). Romanian version of SDM-Q-9 validation in Internal Medicine and Cardiology setting: a multicentric cross-sectional study. Rom J Intern Med, 57 (2):195-200.
29. Narapaka PK, Singh M, Murti K, Dhingra S (2024). Validity and reliability of the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) among Indian oncology patients in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health, 27:101626.
30. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. ed. Sage publications.
31. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Phillips SM (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. ed. Mayfield Publishing Co.
32. Cronbach LJ (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3):297-334.
33. Ubbink DT, van Asbeck EV, Aarts JW, et al (2022). Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making. Patient Educ Couns, 105 (7):2475-2479.
34. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Haerter M (2015). Comparing the nine‐item Shared Decision‐Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale–an attempt to establish convergent validity. Health Expect, 18 (1):137-150.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 54 No 6 (2025) | |
| Section | Review Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i6.18896 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Shared decision-making Patient involvement Validity and reliability Psychometric validation 9-Item shared decision-making | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Narapaka P, Singh M, Meenakshi S, C V J, Goudicharla M, Murti K, Dhingra S. Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review. Iran J Public Health. 2025;54(6):1179-1192.
