The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making

Paul J Barr; Alistair James O'Malley; Maka Tsulukidze; Michael R Gionfriddo; Victor Montori; Glyn Elwyn

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010

The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making

Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Aug;98(8):970-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010. Epub 2015 Apr 29.

Authors

Paul J Barr¹, Alistair James O'Malley², Maka Tsulukidze³, Michael R Gionfriddo⁴, Victor Montori⁵, Glyn Elwyn⁶

Affiliations

¹ The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, USA. Electronic address: Paul.J.Barr@dartmouth.edu.
² The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, USA. Electronic address: Alistair.J.O'Malley@dartmouth.edu.
³ The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Hanover, USA. Electronic address: tsulukidze.maka@gmail.com.
⁴ Mayo Graduate School, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Electronic address: Gionfriddo.Michael@mayo.edu.
⁵ Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Electronic address: Montori.Victor@mayo.edu.
⁶ The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, USA; The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Hanover, USA. Electronic address: glynelwyn@gmail.com.

PMID: 25956069
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010

Abstract

Objectives: Observer OPTION(5) was designed as a more efficient version of OPTION(12), the most commonly used measure of shared decision making (SDM). The current paper assesses the psychometric properties of OPTION(5).

Methods: Two raters used OPTION(5) to rate recordings of clinical encounters from two previous patient decision aid (PDA) trials (n=201; n=110). A subsample was re-rated two weeks later. We assessed discriminative validity, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, and concurrent validity.

Results: OPTION(5) demonstrated discriminative validity, with increases in SDM between usual care and PDA arms. OPTION(5) also demonstrated concurrent validity with OPTION(12), r=0.61 (95%CI 0.54, 0.68) and intra-rater reliability, r=0.93 (0.83, 0.97). The mean difference in rater score was 8.89 (95% Credibility Interval, 7.5, 10.3), with intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.67 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.51, 0.91) for the accuracy of rater scores and 0.70 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.56, 0.94) for the consistency of rater scores across encounters, indicating good inter-rater reliability. Raters reported lower cognitive burden when using OPTION(5) compared to OPTION(12).

Conclusions: OPTION(5) is a brief, theoretically grounded observer measure of SDM with promising psychometric properties in this sample and low burden on raters.

Practice implications: OPTION(5) has potential to provide reliable, valid assessment of SDM in clinical encounters.

Keywords: Measurement; Patient–provider communication; Psychometrics; Shared decision making.

MeSH terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Communication*
Decision Making*
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Patient Participation / psychology*
Physician-Patient Relations*
Psychometrics / statistics & numerical data*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Reproducibility of Results
Tape Recording
Video Recording