Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Babak Nejati, Chien Chin Lin, Vida Imani, Maria Browall, Chung Ying Lin (Corresponding Author), Anders Broström, Amir H. Pakpour

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Background: This study investigated the psychometric properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) using comprehensive and thorough psychometric methods in an oncology setting. Methods: Cancer survivors (n = 1783; 928 [52.05%] males) and physicians (n=154; 121 [78.58%] males) participated in this study. Each cancer survivor completed the SDM-Q-9. Physicians completed the SDM-Q-Doc for each of their cancer patient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch model were used to test the psychometric properties of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. Results: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrated unidimensional structure in CFA and Rasch model. In addition, the measurement invariance was supported for both SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc across sex using the multigroup CFA. Rash analysis indicates no differential item functioning (DIF)across sex for all the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc items. SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were moderately correlated (r = 0.41; P< 0.001). Conclusion: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc are valid instruments to assess shared decision making in the oncology setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-114
Number of pages10
JournalHealth Promotion Perspectives
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019


  • Cancer
  • Confirmatory factor analysis
  • Instrumental study
  • Rasch

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Education
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this