Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 291–296 | Cite as

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

  • John H. Porcerelli
  • William Murdoch
  • Pierre Morris
  • Shannon Fowler


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.


Doctor–patient relationship Patient–doctor relationship questionnaire PDRQ-9 DDPRQ-10 Convergent validity Discriminant validity 



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.


  1. 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. 24 Oct 2007.
  2. Bayer-Fetzer Conference. (2001). Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: The Kalamazoo Consensus Statement. Academic Medicine, 76, 390–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornstein, R. F. (2010). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Hahn, S. R. (2001). Physical symptoms and physician-experienced difficulty in the physician–patient relationship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(Supplement), 897–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, J. L., & Kroenke, K. (1999). Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: Clinical predictors and outcomes. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 1069–1075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Porcerelli
    • 1
    • 3
  • William Murdoch
    • 1
  • Pierre Morris
    • 1
  • Shannon Fowler
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine & Public Health SciencesWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Detroit MercyDetroitUSA
  3. 3.WSU Family Medicine Center1135 W. University DriveRochester HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations