File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery

TitlePsychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery
Authors
KeywordsBreast Cancer
Chinese
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Decisional Conflict
Psychometric Assessement
Issue Date2015
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/HEX
Citation
Health Expectations, 2015, v. 18 n. 2, p. 210-220 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: The decisional conflict scale (DCS) measures the perception of uncertainty in choosing options, factors contributing to decision conflict and effective decision making. This study examined the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the DCS in Hong Kong Chinese women deciding breast cancer (BC) surgery. Method: A Chinese version of the 16-item DCS was administered to 471 women awaiting initial consultation for BC diagnosis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the factor structure. Internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validities of the factor structure were assessed. Results: CFA revealed the original factor structure of the DCS showed poor fit to this sample. Exploratory factor analysis revealed an alternative three-factor structure, Informed and Values Clarity, Uncertainty and Effective Decision and Support, was optimal. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.51 to 0.87. Correlations between decision-making difficulties and satisfaction with medical consultation demonstrated acceptable convergent validity. Construct validity was supported by correlations between decision regret and psychological distress. Discriminant validity was supported by differentiation between delaying and non-delaying decision-makers. Conclusions: The three-factor DCS-14 is a valid and practical measure for assessing decisional conflict in deciding BC surgery. It shows good potential for use in assessing decision satisfaction for women diagnosed with BC. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/182364
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.207
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.767

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLam, WWTen_US
dc.contributor.authorKwok, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorLiao, Qen_US
dc.contributor.authorChan, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorOr, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorKwong, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuen, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorFielding, Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-23T08:20:20Z-
dc.date.available2013-04-23T08:20:20Z-
dc.date.issued2015en_US
dc.identifier.citationHealth Expectations, 2015, v. 18 n. 2, p. 210-220en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-6513en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/182364-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The decisional conflict scale (DCS) measures the perception of uncertainty in choosing options, factors contributing to decision conflict and effective decision making. This study examined the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the DCS in Hong Kong Chinese women deciding breast cancer (BC) surgery. Method: A Chinese version of the 16-item DCS was administered to 471 women awaiting initial consultation for BC diagnosis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the factor structure. Internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validities of the factor structure were assessed. Results: CFA revealed the original factor structure of the DCS showed poor fit to this sample. Exploratory factor analysis revealed an alternative three-factor structure, Informed and Values Clarity, Uncertainty and Effective Decision and Support, was optimal. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.51 to 0.87. Correlations between decision-making difficulties and satisfaction with medical consultation demonstrated acceptable convergent validity. Construct validity was supported by correlations between decision regret and psychological distress. Discriminant validity was supported by differentiation between delaying and non-delaying decision-makers. Conclusions: The three-factor DCS-14 is a valid and practical measure for assessing decisional conflict in deciding BC surgery. It shows good potential for use in assessing decision satisfaction for women diagnosed with BC. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/HEXen_US
dc.relation.ispartofHealth Expectationsen_US
dc.subjectBreast Canceren_US
dc.subjectChineseen_US
dc.subjectConfirmatory Factor Analysisen_US
dc.subjectDecisional Conflicten_US
dc.subjectPsychometric Assessementen_US
dc.titlePsychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLam, WWT: wwtlam@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailKwong, A: avakwong@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailFielding, R: fielding@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLam, WWT=rp00443en_US
dc.identifier.authorityKwong, A=rp01734en_US
dc.identifier.authorityFielding, R=rp00339en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/hex.12021en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23167846-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84925344516en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros215719-
dc.identifier.hkuros240158-
dc.identifier.hkuros254877-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLam, WWT=7203022022en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKwok, M=55499099200en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLiao, Q=55499083300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, M=55500082000en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridOr, A=8562756500en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKwong, A=8913654300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSuen, D=8876971300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFielding, R=7102200484en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats