MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760602193 · doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10273

Critical Synthesis Package: Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)

2015· article· en· W2760602193 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPORTAL · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleScale (ratio)PsychologyStatement (logic)Social psychologyApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This Critical Synthesis Package contains: (1) a Critical Analysis of the psychometric properties and application to health sciences education for the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and (2) a copy of the DCS instrument, scoring key; and manual developed by Annette O'Connor, PhD, RN. The DCS is meant to identify patients' decisional conflicts regarding a treatment or screening option. The original version has 16 items with five subscales labeled: Informed, Values, Support, Uncertainty, and Effective Decision. Together these items assess decisional uncertainty, as well as social and cognitive variables believed to be important in decision making. The items are scored by participants on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Currently, there are a number of different versions of the DCS: the original 16-item statement-based questionnaire; a modified 16-item statement-based questionnaire; a 16-item question-based version that contains the five subscales that uses a 5-point scale ranging from yes to no; and a low literacy version (DCS-LL) where the questionnaire is reduced to 10 items with a 3-point scale meant to assess four of the original five scales. The fifth and most recent version is a 4-item questionnaire titled SURE and it measures decision making capabilities across four domains of: Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, and Encouragement, utilizing a yes/no question format. Total scores from the modified 16-item measure, the 16-item yes/no measure, and the SURE questionnaire versions are used to assess decisional conflicts, while high scores on the original DCS and DCS-LL, as well as scores below four on the SURE indicate decisional conflicts. The SURE version has been recommended for clinical practice and the other four are recommend for research purposes with the statement formatted versions being used in the most studies to date. All versions are easy to implement and score. While there is ample evidence for the reliability of the scores from these instruments, there is still no clear evidence regarding the underlying factor structure. However, this instrument has been used in hundreds of studies with various patient populations and has been validated in a number of languages. While factor structure is an issue, scores do provide foundational evidence for patient decisional conflicts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.376
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.112 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it