Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Patient–Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in Primary Care: A Validity Study

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study assessed the validity of the Patient–Doctor Relationship Questionnaire-9 (PDRQ-9) in a primary care sample (N = 180). Convergent validity was assessed through a correlation between the patient-rated PDRQ-9 and the physician-rated Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire-10 (DDPRQ-10). Discriminant validity was assessed through correlations between the PDRQ-9 and patient age, patient- and physician-reported health and psychological distress. To determine if the PDRQ-9 could discriminate between groups, patient PDRQ-9 ratings were compared between patients who were treated by faculty physicians versus those who were treated by residents. An exploratory factor analysis confirmed that the PDRQ-9 was made up of a single factor. The PDRQ-9 scale was internally consistent (α = .96) and significantly and negatively correlated with the DDPRQ-10 (r = −.22, p = .003) and was not significantly correlated with patient age, health, or psychological distress. PDRQ-9 ratings were statistically greater in patients who were treated by faculty physicians than those who were treated by residents (p = .01). This study provides additional support for the reliability and validity of the PDRQ-9 as a measure of the doctor–patient relationship in a primary care sample.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Osteopathic Association. (2007). Joint principles of the patient-centered medical home. www.medicalhomeinfo.org/Joint%20Statement.pdf. 24 Oct 2007.

  • Bayer-Fetzer Conference. (2001). Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: The Kalamazoo Consensus Statement. Academic Medicine, 76, 390–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (2010). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L., Beesley, H., Holcombe, C., & Salmon, P. (2011). The influence of childhood abuse and adult attachment style on clinical relationships in breast cancer care. General Hospital Psychiatry, 33, 579–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didden, D. G., Philbrick, J. T., & Schorling, J. B. (2001/2002). Anxiety and depression in an internal medicine resident continuity clinic: Difficult diagnoses. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 31, 155–167.

  • Hahn, S. R. (2001). Physical symptoms and physician-experienced difficulty in the physician–patient relationship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(Supplement), 897–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, S. R., Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Brody, D., Williams, J. B., Linzer, M., deGruy, F. V. (1996). The difficult patient: Prevalence, psychopathology, and functional impairments. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 11, 1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, S. R., Thompson, K. S., Wills, T. A., Stern, V., & Budner, N. S. (2004). The difficult doctor–patient relationship: Somatization, personality and psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, G., Henningson, P., Herzog, W., Sauer, N., Schaefert, R., Szecsenyid, J., Löwe, B. (2009). Depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders: Vague or distinct categories in primary care? Results from a large cross-sectional study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67, 189–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. L., & Kroenke, K. (1999). Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: Clinical predictors and outcomes. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 1069–1075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, K., Jackson, J. L., & Chamberlin, J. (1997). Depressive and anxiety disorders in patients presenting with physical complaints: Clinical predictors and outcome. American Journal of Medicine, 103, 339–347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41, 1284–1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50, 613–621.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Löwe, B., Wahl, I., Rose, M., Spitzer, C., Glaesmer, H., Wingenfeld, K., … Brahler, E. (2010). A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: Validation and standardization of the patient health questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122, 86–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Fernández, J., delCura-González, M. I., Gómez-Gascón, T., Fernández-López, E., Pajares-Carabajal, G., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2009). Patient satisfaction with the patient–doctor relationship measured using the questionnaire (PDRQ-9). Atencion Primaria, 42, 196–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maunder, R. G., Panzer, A., Viljoen, M., Owen, J., Human, S., & Hunter, J. J. (2006). Physicians’ difficulty with emergency department patients is related to patients’ attachment style. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 552–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. D., & Ferris, D. G. (1993). Measurement of subjective phenomena in primary care research: The visual analogue scale. Family Practice Research Journal, 13, 15–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1988). The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 26, 724–735.

  • Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., Donner, A., McWhinney, I. R., Oates, J., Weston, W. W., & Jordon, J. (2000). The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice, 49, 796–804.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M., Van Oppen, P., Van Marwijk, H. W. J., De Beurs, E., & Van Dyck, R. (2004). A patient–doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in primary care: Development and psychometric evaluation. General Hospital Psychiatry, 26, 115–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, K. B., Stewart, A., Hays, R. D., Burnam, M. A., Rogers, W., Daniels, M., … Ware, J. (1989). The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 914–919.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors with to thank the Department of Family Medicine & Public Health Sciences for their support of this research and to the Family Medicine Center staff for their assistance in carrying out this project.

Conflict of Interest

John Porcerelli, William Murdoch, Pierre Morris, and Shannon Fowler declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Human Investigations Committee of the IRB at Wayne State University and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine & Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA

    John H. Porcerelli, William Murdoch & Pierre Morris

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA

    Shannon Fowler

  3. WSU Family Medicine Center, 1135 W. University Drive, Suite 250, Rochester Hills, MI, 48307, USA

    John H. Porcerelli

Authors
  1. John H. Porcerelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Murdoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shannon Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Porcerelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Porcerelli, J.H., Murdoch, W., Morris, P. et al. The Patient–Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in Primary Care: A Validity Study. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 21, 291–296 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-014-9407-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-014-9407-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation