Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The development and psychometric analyses of ADEPT: An instrument for assessing the interactions between doctors and their elderly patients

  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background: The lack of instruments and methodologies designed specifically for assessing doctor-elderly patient interactions has constricted research on effective communication in the medical care of older adults.Purpose: This article reports on the development, qualitative analyses, and psychometric testing of the Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Transactions (ADEPT), an instrument for assessing interactions between doctors and their elderly patients.Methods: The ADEPT was based on the recommendations of an expert panel and designed around the three-function model of the medical interview. The ADEPT is meant to operationalize the research findings of interactional analysis studies of doctor-patient interaction. Following preliminary testing with standardized patients, the ADEPT was applied tovideotapedvisits of 433 patients 65 years of age andolder to the doctor (n = 40) identifiedas their primary source of care.Results: Four final scales derived from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were scored: Supporting, comprised of the 12 items from the first factor; Eliciting Needs, containing the 5 items from the second factor; and Informing, based on the final 6-itemfactor. Individual Cronbach’s alphas across raters for this sample rangedfrom .71 to. 79 for the first scale, from .83 to. 88 for the secondscale, and from. 64 to.81 for the third scale. The reliability estimates for the total scale (23 items) rangedfrom .80 to. 86 across raters. A fifth summed index composed of 46 binary checklist items also was computed. Conclusions: The findings indicate that credible scales can be developed for assessing communication behaviors.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boon H, Stewart M: Patient-physician communication assessment instruments: 1986 to 1996 in review.Patient Education and Counseling. 1998,5:161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haug MR, Ory MG: Issues in elderly patient-provider interactions.Research on Aging. 1987,9:3–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Beisecker AE: Older persons’ medical encounters and their outcomes.Research on Aging. 1996,18:9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Haug MR: The effects of physician/elder patient characteristics on health communication.Health Communication. 1996,8:249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Irish J: Deciphering the physician-older patient interaction.International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine. 1997,27:251–267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stewart M, Meredith L, Brown J, Galajda J: The influence of older patient-physician communication on health and healthrelated outcomes.Clinics of Geriatric Medicine. 2000,16:25–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD: Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: A systematic review.Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 2002,15:25–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bales RF: A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction.American Sociological Review. 1950,15:257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roter DL:Coding Manual for Roter Interactional Analysis Scheme. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stiles WB: Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978,36:693–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W: Informed decision making in outpatient practice: Time to get back to basics.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999,282:2313–2320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marvel KM, Epstein RM, Flowers K, Beckman, HB: Soliciting the patient’s agenda: Have we improved?Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999,281:283–287.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE, Yano EM, Frank HJ: Patients’ participation in medical care: Effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1988,3:448–457.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Delbecq A, Van de Ven A, Gustafson D:Group Techniques for Program Planning, a Guide to Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Processes. New York: Scott Foreman, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lazare A, Putnam S, Lipkin M: Three functions of the medical interview. In Lipkin M, Putnam S, Lazare A (eds),The Medical Interview: Clinical Care, Education and Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Beckman HB, Frankel RM: The effects of physician behavior on the collection of data.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1984,101:692–696.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fan X, Chen M: Published studies of interrater reliability often overestimate reliability: Computing the correct coefficient.Educational and Psychological Statistics. 2000,60:532–542.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational Psychological Measurement. 1960,20:37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fleiss JL, Cohen J: The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973,33:613–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1990,43:543–549.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunn G:Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies: The Statistical Evaluation of Measurement Errors. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Donner A, Eliasziw M, Klar N: Testing the homogeneity of kappa statistics.Biometrics. 1996,52:176–183.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR: High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1990,43:551–558.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bartko JJ: General methodology II: Measures of agreement: A single procedure.Statistics in Medicine. 1994,13:737–745.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sörbom D:Modelmodification.Psychometrika. 1989,54:371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Harman HH:Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gerbing DW, Anderson JC: Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In Bollen KA, Long JS (eds),Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, 40–65.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jöreskog KG: Testing structural equation models. In Bollen KA, Long JS (eds),Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, 294–316.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Akaike H: Factor analysis and AIC.Psychometrika. 1987,52:317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bozdogan H: Model selection and Akaike’s information criteria (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions.Psychometrika. 1987,52:345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tanaka J: Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In Bollen KA, Long JS (eds),Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, 10–39.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bollen KA: Sample size and Bentler and Bonett’s nonnormed fit index.Psychometrika. 1986,51:375–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Steiger JH: Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1990,25:173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D:LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications. Chicago: SPSS, Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW: The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis.Psychometrika. 1984,49:155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. American Medical Association:Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2001/2002 Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  37. U.S. Census Bureau:Current Population Survey. Retrieved October 28, 2005 from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc- 1-1-pt1.pdf

  38. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics:Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-Being. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wasserman RC, Inui TS: Systematic analysis of clinician-patient interactions: A critique of recent approaches with suggestions for future research.Medical Care. 1983,21:279–293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Freemon B, Negrete VF, Davis M, Korsch BM: Gaps in doctor-patient communication: Doctor-patient interaction analysis.Pediatric Research. 1971,5:298–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, et al.: Communication patterns of primary care physicians.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997,277:350–356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Charon R, Greene MG, Adelman RD: Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: A collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse.Social Science & Medicine. 1994,39:955–965.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Goldstein MG, Kemp White M, Bonvicini K, et al.: Exploring relationships between ADEPT, patient perceptions of physician communication skills and patient satisfaction. In Cook M (ed),Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2, Appendix B, #6, 1-22). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Liang W: The impact of physician-patient communication on intention for screening mammography among the elderly. In Cook M (ed),Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2, Appendix B, #5, 1-33). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kantor B: The psychometric properties of ADEPT in the evaluation of medical student-older patient interactions in a simulated home environment. In Cook M (ed),Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2, Appendix B, #2, 1-15). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shippee-Rice R: Nurse practitioner-older patient communication. In Cook M (ed),Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2, Appendix B, #3, 1-4). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rudy D, Griffith C, Haist S, Stiles N, Wilson J: Development of an interactive workshop in communication and interviewing skills with elderly patients for internal medicine residents. In Cook M (ed),Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2, Appendix B, #8, 1-8). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cook MA:Final Report: Assessment of Doctor-Elderly Patient Encounters (Grant No. R44 AG5737-S2). Washington, DC: National Institute on Aging, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Division of the Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale, Riverdale, New York

    Jeanne A. Teresi Ed.D., Ph.D.

  2. Columbia University Stroud Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, USA

    Jeanne A. Teresi Ed.D., Ph.D.

  3. Research Division of the Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale, Riverdale, New York, USA

    Mildred Ramírez Ph.D. & Katja Ocepek-Welikson M.S.

  4. JVC Radiology and Medical Analysis LLC, Clayton, Missouri, USA

    Mary Ann Cook Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Jeanne A. Teresi Ed.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mildred Ramírez Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katja Ocepek-Welikson M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary Ann Cook Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanne A. Teresi Ed.D., Ph.D..

Additional information

This research was funded in whole with funds from the National Institute

This research was funded in whole with funds from the National Institute

This research was funded in whole with funds from the National Institute

We thank Douglas Holmes, Ph.D., for his review and comments on several earlier versions of this article.

About this article

Cite this article

Teresi, J.A., Ramírez, M., Ocepek-Welikson, K. et al. The development and psychometric analyses of ADEPT: An instrument for assessing the interactions between doctors and their elderly patients. ann. behav. med. 30, 225–242 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3003_7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3003_7

Keywords

Search

Navigation