Open AccessPsychometric assessment of the C hinese version of the decisional conflict scale in C hinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery
Author(s) -
Lam Wendy W. T.,
Kwok Marie,
Liao Qiuyan,
Chan Miranda,
Or Amy,
Kwong Ava,
Suen Dacita,
Fielding Richard
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12021
Subject(s) - discriminant validity , confirmatory factor analysis , exploratory factor analysis , convergent validity , distress , breast cancer , construct validity , regret , scale (ratio) , psychology , concurrent validity , reliability (semiconductor) , clinical psychology , psychometrics , medicine , structural equation modeling , internal consistency , cancer , mathematics , statistics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Objective 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 C hinese version of the DCS in H ong K ong C hinese women deciding breast cancer ( BC ) surgery. Method A C hinese 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, I nformed and V alues C larity, U ncertainty and E ffective D ecision and S upport, was optimal. C ronbach'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 .