Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan;42(1):105-113.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X211029267. Epub 2021 Aug 3.

Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

Affiliations

Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

K D Valentine et al. Med Decis Making. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

Background: The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations.

Method: An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision-colon cancer screening or high cholesterol-and a viewing order-good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted.

Results: In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos (Ps < 0.001), and those who viewed the good-quality high cholesterol video first tended to rate the videos higher. SDM Process scores were related to SDM-Q-9 scores (rs > 0.58; Ps < 0.001). AUC was poor (0.69) for the high cholesterol model and fair (0.79) for the colorectal cancer model. Heterogeneity analyses suggested individual differences were predictive of SDM Process scores.

Conclusion: SDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.

Keywords: measurement; shared decision making; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brodney S, Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Chang Y, Sepucha K. Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales. Med Decis Mak. 2019;39(6):673–680. doi:10.1177/0272989X19855951 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sepucha KR, Belkora JK, Chang Y, et al. Measuring decision quality: Psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12(1):1. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-51 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fagerlin A, Sepucha KR, Couper MP, Levin CA, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(5_suppl):35–52. - PubMed
    1. Sepucha KR, Langford AT, Belkora JK, et al. Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients. Med Decis Mak. 2019;39(6):642–650. doi:10.1177/0272989X19862545 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sepucha KR, Feibelmann S, Cosenza C, Levin CA, Pignone M. Development and evaluation of a new survey instrument to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening decisions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14(1):1–9. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-14-72 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types