Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD): Reliability and validity

Cleveland G. Shields, Peter Franks, Kevin Fiscella, Sean Meldrum, Ronald M. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted develop a reliable and valid objective measure of patient-physician collaborative decision making, the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD). METHODS: Based on an informed decision-making model, the RPAD assesses physician behavior that encourages patient participation in decision making. Data were from a study of physician-patient communication of 100 primary care physicians. Physician encounters with 2 standardized patients each were audio recorded, resulting in 193 useable recordings. Transcribed recordings were coded both with RPAD and the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which includes a related construct, Finding Common Ground. Two sets of dependent variables were derived from (1) surveys of the standardized patients and (2) surveys of 50 patients of each physician, who assessed their perceptions of the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: The RPAD was coded reliably (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.72). RPAD correlated with Finding Common Ground (r = 0.19, P <.01) and with the survey measures of standardized patient's perceptions of the physician-patient relationship (r = 0.32 - 0.36 [P <.005]) but less with the patient survey measures (r = 0.06 to 0.07 [P <.005]). Multivariate, hierarchical analyses suggested that the RPAD made a more robust contribution to explaining variance in standardized patient perceptions than did the MPCC Finding Common Ground. CONCLUSIONS: The RPAD shows promise as a reliable, valid, and easy-to-code objective measure of participatory decision making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)436-442
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Family Medicine
Volume3
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
Decision Making
Physicians
Physician-Patient Relations
Communication
Patient Participation
Primary Care Physicians
Multivariate Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Informatics
  • Medical decision making
  • Physician-patient relations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD) : Reliability and validity. / Shields, Cleveland G.; Franks, Peter; Fiscella, Kevin; Meldrum, Sean; Epstein, Ronald M.

In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 5, 09.2005, p. 436-442.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shields, Cleveland G. ; Franks, Peter ; Fiscella, Kevin ; Meldrum, Sean ; Epstein, Ronald M. / Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD) : Reliability and validity. In: Annals of Family Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 3, No. 5. pp. 436-442.
@article{4098e52c9b43489a9bc31492662fbd3b,
title = "Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD): Reliability and validity",
abstract = "PURPOSE: We wanted develop a reliable and valid objective measure of patient-physician collaborative decision making, the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD). METHODS: Based on an informed decision-making model, the RPAD assesses physician behavior that encourages patient participation in decision making. Data were from a study of physician-patient communication of 100 primary care physicians. Physician encounters with 2 standardized patients each were audio recorded, resulting in 193 useable recordings. Transcribed recordings were coded both with RPAD and the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which includes a related construct, Finding Common Ground. Two sets of dependent variables were derived from (1) surveys of the standardized patients and (2) surveys of 50 patients of each physician, who assessed their perceptions of the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: The RPAD was coded reliably (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.72). RPAD correlated with Finding Common Ground (r = 0.19, P <.01) and with the survey measures of standardized patient's perceptions of the physician-patient relationship (r = 0.32 - 0.36 [P <.005]) but less with the patient survey measures (r = 0.06 to 0.07 [P <.005]). Multivariate, hierarchical analyses suggested that the RPAD made a more robust contribution to explaining variance in standardized patient perceptions than did the MPCC Finding Common Ground. CONCLUSIONS: The RPAD shows promise as a reliable, valid, and easy-to-code objective measure of participatory decision making.",
keywords = "Informatics, Medical decision making, Physician-patient relations",
author = "Shields, {Cleveland G.} and Peter Franks and Kevin Fiscella and Sean Meldrum and Epstein, {Ronald M.}",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1370/afm.305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "436--442",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD)

T2 - Reliability and validity

AU - Shields, Cleveland G.

AU - Franks, Peter

AU - Fiscella, Kevin

AU - Meldrum, Sean

AU - Epstein, Ronald M.

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - PURPOSE: We wanted develop a reliable and valid objective measure of patient-physician collaborative decision making, the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD). METHODS: Based on an informed decision-making model, the RPAD assesses physician behavior that encourages patient participation in decision making. Data were from a study of physician-patient communication of 100 primary care physicians. Physician encounters with 2 standardized patients each were audio recorded, resulting in 193 useable recordings. Transcribed recordings were coded both with RPAD and the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which includes a related construct, Finding Common Ground. Two sets of dependent variables were derived from (1) surveys of the standardized patients and (2) surveys of 50 patients of each physician, who assessed their perceptions of the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: The RPAD was coded reliably (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.72). RPAD correlated with Finding Common Ground (r = 0.19, P <.01) and with the survey measures of standardized patient's perceptions of the physician-patient relationship (r = 0.32 - 0.36 [P <.005]) but less with the patient survey measures (r = 0.06 to 0.07 [P <.005]). Multivariate, hierarchical analyses suggested that the RPAD made a more robust contribution to explaining variance in standardized patient perceptions than did the MPCC Finding Common Ground. CONCLUSIONS: The RPAD shows promise as a reliable, valid, and easy-to-code objective measure of participatory decision making.

AB - PURPOSE: We wanted develop a reliable and valid objective measure of patient-physician collaborative decision making, the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD). METHODS: Based on an informed decision-making model, the RPAD assesses physician behavior that encourages patient participation in decision making. Data were from a study of physician-patient communication of 100 primary care physicians. Physician encounters with 2 standardized patients each were audio recorded, resulting in 193 useable recordings. Transcribed recordings were coded both with RPAD and the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which includes a related construct, Finding Common Ground. Two sets of dependent variables were derived from (1) surveys of the standardized patients and (2) surveys of 50 patients of each physician, who assessed their perceptions of the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: The RPAD was coded reliably (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.72). RPAD correlated with Finding Common Ground (r = 0.19, P <.01) and with the survey measures of standardized patient's perceptions of the physician-patient relationship (r = 0.32 - 0.36 [P <.005]) but less with the patient survey measures (r = 0.06 to 0.07 [P <.005]). Multivariate, hierarchical analyses suggested that the RPAD made a more robust contribution to explaining variance in standardized patient perceptions than did the MPCC Finding Common Ground. CONCLUSIONS: The RPAD shows promise as a reliable, valid, and easy-to-code objective measure of participatory decision making.

KW - Informatics

KW - Medical decision making

KW - Physician-patient relations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27244432597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27244432597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1370/afm.305

DO - 10.1370/afm.305

M3 - Article

C2 - 16189060

AN - SCOPUS:27244432597

VL - 3

SP - 436

EP - 442

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 5

ER -