Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 16;22(1):462.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03444-1.

Developing and validating of the Clinical Uncertainty Measurement Questionnaire (CUMQ) among practicing physicians and clinical residents in Iran

Shirin Ghanavati  1 , Hamid Reza Baradaran  2 , Seyed Kamran Soltani Arabshahi  1 , Shoaleh Bigdeli  1
Affiliations

Developing and validating of the Clinical Uncertainty Measurement Questionnaire (CUMQ) among practicing physicians and clinical residents in Iran

Shirin Ghanavati et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Despite the fact that clinicians face uncertainty in their decisions, there is no comprehensive framework to measure it in medical practices which is the knowledge gap especially for Iran. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of a Persian questionnaire which is designed to measure different determining aspects of uncertainty from clinical physicians' perspectives in Iran.

Methods: Clinical Uncertainty Measurement Questionnaire (CUMQ) has been derived from a mixed method study since March 2019 to January 2021. To exclude raw items of the questionnaire, the literature was reviewed and in-depthinterviews were implemented with 24 residents,specialists and sub-specialists in all major clinical fields which resulted in the first theoretical uncertainty in clinical decision making framework. CUMQ content validity has been evaluated using content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). The structural validity of the questionnaire was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and factor loading and t-value for each indicator of uncertainty is reported. Moreover, to analyze the research model we used the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique using the SmartPLS software. Convergent (using Average Variance Extracted (AVEs) for each latent variable) and discriminant validity (using the criteria of Fornell and Larckerand cross loading) of the model was also evaluated. After that, the quality of the model was evaluated adjustment through predictive validity (Q2) and effect size (f2). In addition, the reliability was also assessed using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability.

Results: The CVR and CVI ranged from 0. 80 to 1. 00 which illustrates high content validity. Out of 30 items, 24 items had acceptable factor loading and remained in the questionnaire which have been categorized as five main clinical uncertainty dimensions; general determinants, individual determinants of the physician, individual determinants of patient, dynamics of medical sciences, diagnostic and instrumental limitations. The value of composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha for all dimensions were above the threshold value of 0. 7 and the reliability has been confirmed. As AVE values were greater than 0. 5, convergent validity is confirmed. The result of Fornell-Larcker and cross-loadings also indicated that discriminant validity is well established.

Conclusion: This CUMQ is as avalid and reliable instrument and a suitable tool to measure clinical uncertainty in the Iranian Medical community. However, the reliability of this questionnaire can be studied in other languages and in other countries.

Keywords: Clinical Uncertainty; Questionnaire; Reliability; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sample size estimation via sample power software
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bootstrapping results
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Matthews RA. The origins of the treatment of uncertainty in clinical medicine. Part 1: ancient roots, familiar disputes. JRSM. 2020;113(5):193–6. doi: 10.1177/0141076820921050. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith M, Higgs J, Ellis E. Factors influencing clinical decision making. Clin Reason Health Prof. 2008;3:89–100.
    1. Hillen MA, Gutheil CM, Strout TD, Smets EM, Han PK. Tolerance of uncertainty: Conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2017;180:62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.024. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Descartes R. Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies. Oxford University Press; 2008;1:336–41.
    1. Dhawale T, Steuten LM, Deeg HJ. Uncertainty of physicians and patients in medical decision making. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23(6):865–869. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.03.013. - DOI - PubMed