Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician’s perspective in oncology practice

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire–Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in a sample of medical oncologists who provide adjuvant treatment to patients with non-metastatic resected cancer and the correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided.


Prospective, observational and multicenter study in which 32 medical oncologists and 520 patients were recruited. The psychometric properties, dimensionality, and factor structure of the SDM-Q-Doc were assessed.


Exploratory factor analyses suggested that the most likely solution was two-dimensional, with two correlated factors: one factor regarding information and another one about treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis based on cross-validation showed that the fitted two-dimensional solution provided the best fit to the data. Reliability analyses revealed good accuracy for the derived scores, both total and sub-scale, with estimates ranging from 0.81 to 0.89. The results revealed significant correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided (p < 0.01); between information sub-scale scores (factor 1) and satisfaction (p < 0.01), and between treatment sub-scale scores (factor 2) and satisfaction (p < 0.01). Medical oncologists of older age and those with more years of experience showed more interest in the patient preferences (p = 0.026 and p = 0.020, respectively). Patient age negatively correlated with SDM information (p < 0.01) and physicians appear to provide more information to young patients.


SDM-Q-Doc showed good psychometric properties and could be a helpful tool that examines physician’s perspective of SDM and as an indicator of quality and satisfaction in patients with cancer.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Cronin KA, Yu B, Krapcho M, Miglioretti DL, Fay MP, Izmirlian G, et al. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:701–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kemetli L, Rutqvist LE, Jonsson H, Nyström L, Lenner P, Törnberg S. Temporal trends in the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: a population based study in Sweden 1976-2005. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:59–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moloczij N, Krishnasamy M, Butow P, Hack TF, Stafford L, Jefford M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of audio-recordings and question prompt lists in cancer care consultations: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:1083–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andronis L, Barton PM. Adjusting estimates of the expected value of information for implementation: theoretical framework and practical application. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36:296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beach MC, Inui T. Relationship-centered care research network. relationship-centered care. A constructive reframing. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 1):S3–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Krishnamurti T, Argo N. A patient-centered approach to informed consent. Med. Decis. Mak. 2016;36:726–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Colley A, Halpern J, Paul S, Micco G, Lahiff M, Wright F, et al. Factors associated with oncology patients’ involvement in shared decision making during chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2016;. doi:10.1002/pon.4284 [Epub ahead of print].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hambleton RK, Merenda PF, Spielberger CD. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR 9.2: a comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2013;37:497–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mplus [computer program]. Version 5.1. Los Angeles: Muthen and Muthen; 1998–2007.

  13. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods Psychol Res. 2003; 23–74.

  14. Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. A note on improving EAP trait estimation in oblique factor-analytic and item response theory models. Psicologica. 2016;37:235–47.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. In: Unrestricted item factor analysis and some relations with Item Response Theory. 2013.;2013. Accessed 21 Oct 2015.

  16. Légaré F, Moher D, Elwyn G, LeBlanc A, Gravel K. Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, Scholl I, van der Weijden T, Luyten GPM, et al. Dutch translation and psychometric testing of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (sDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in primary and secondary care. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brace C, Schmocker S, Huang H, Victor JC, McLeod RS, Kennedy ED. Physicians’ awareness and attitudes toward decision aids for patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2286–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zeuner R, Frosch DL, Kuzemchak MD, Politi MC. Physicians’ perceptions of shared decision-making behaviours: a qualitative study demonstrating the continued chasm between aspirations and clinical practice. Health Expect. 2015;18:2465–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:136–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Arora NK, Weaver KE, Clayman ML, Oakley-Girvan I, Potosky AL. Physicians’ decision-making style and psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:404–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp KG. Physician, patient, and contextual factors affecting treatment decisions in older adults with cancer and models of decision making: a literature review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39:E70–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Shepherd HL, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN. Factors which motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in reaching treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kenny DA, Veldhuijzen W, van der Weijden T, Leblanc A, Lockyer J, Légaré F, et al. Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: a dyadic analysis of doctor–patient communication. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:763–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Calderon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This is an academic study.

Funding source

The study was supported by the FSEOM-Onvida for Projects on Long Survivors and Quality of Life. SEOM (Spanish Society of Medical Oncology) 2015.

Ethical statement

The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. This study is an observational trial without intervention.

Informed consent statement

Signed informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calderon, C., Ferrando, P.J., Carmona-Bayonas, A. et al. Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician’s perspective in oncology practice. Clin Transl Oncol 19, 1312–1319 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: