Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in Chinese Young Women Making HPV Vaccination Decisions
- PMID: 35356105
- PMCID: PMC8959717
- DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S358292
Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in Chinese Young Women Making HPV Vaccination Decisions
Abstract
Purpose: The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a well-known scale for measuring personal decisional conflict, particularly when a person feels uninformed about the risks/benefits of choices, is unclear about personal values, and feels unsupported in making a choice. Higher scores of DCS indicate higher decisional conflict. In the present study, we aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the DCS among Chinese young women making HPV vaccination decisions.
Methods: A total of 107 HPV-unvaccinated Chinese women aged 18-26 completed the survey assessing decisional conflict, knowledge and decision of HPV vaccination. Factorial validity, construct validity, and reliability of the DCS were examined.
Results: The mean score of the DCS-16 was 41.5 (SD=20.0). Principal component analysis extracted a 3-factor model of DCS containing 13 items (DCS-13), but both the original DCS-16 and extracted DCS-13 showed poor factorial validity. An alternative DCS-10 revealed a good fit to the data with Cronbach's alpha 0.86. Some subscales of the three versions of DCS showed inconsistent correlation.
Conclusion: The DCS-10 demonstrated good model fit to the data. By using the DCS-10 total score rather than sub-scores to measure Chinese young women's HPV vaccination decisional conflict a more valid assessment can be obtained.
Keywords: HPV vaccination; decision making; decisional conflict; validation.
© 2022 Zhai et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this work.
Similar articles
-
Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery.Health Expect. 2015 Apr;18(2):210-20. doi: 10.1111/hex.12021. Epub 2012 Nov 21. Health Expect. 2015. PMID: 23167846 Free PMC article.
-
Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in People with Migraine in Spain.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Dec 15;16:3291-3302. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S384333. eCollection 2022. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022. PMID: 36545540 Free PMC article.
-
Psychometric Assessment of the Mandarin Version of the Decisional Conflict Scale with Pregnant Women Making Prenatal Test Decisions.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Jan 18;16:149-158. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S346017. eCollection 2022. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022. PMID: 35082490 Free PMC article.
-
Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review.Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):301-314. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851345. Epub 2019 May 29. Med Decis Making. 2019. PMID: 31142194 Review.
-
Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review.Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):315-326. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851346. Epub 2019 May 29. Med Decis Making. 2019. PMID: 31142205 Review.
Cited by
-
Reducing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy From a Decisional Conflict Model: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry. 2023 Jan-Dec;60:469580231162524. doi: 10.1177/00469580231162524. Inquiry. 2023. PMID: 36949732 Free PMC article.
-
Interactive decision aid on therapy decision making for patients with chronic kidney disease: A prospective exploratory pilot study.Digit Health. 2025 Apr 1;11:20552076251332832. doi: 10.1177/20552076251332832. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec. Digit Health. 2025. PMID: 40177120 Free PMC article.
References
-
- World Health Organization. Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer; 2020. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs380/en/. Accessed March 16, 2022.
-
- Wang DL, Lam WWT, Fielding R. Parental decision-making with regards to vaccination against human papilloma virus in adolescent girls in Hong Kong, China: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2016;388(Special Issue, S78):S78. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32005-0 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources