• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The Chinese Version of Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD): Reliability and Validity.罗切斯特参与式决策量表中文版（RPAD）：信效度研究
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020 Dec 12;2020:4343815. doi: 10.1155/2020/4343815. eCollection 2020.
2
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the febrile convulsion knowledge scale for parents/caregivers: translation and validation study.针对家长/照料者的中文版热性惊厥知识量表的心理测量学评估：翻译与验证研究
BMC Nurs. 2024 Jun 17;23(1):402. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02073-x.
3
Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale-Chinese Version.二次创伤应激量表中文版的效度与信度
Front Surg. 2022 Apr 1;9:882712. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.882712. eCollection 2022.
4
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the intensive care oral care frequency and assessment scale.《重症监护口腔护理频率及评估量表》中文版的跨文化调适与验证
Heliyon. 2024 Jan 3;10(1):e24025. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24025. eCollection 2024 Jan 15.
5
[Sinicization, cross-cultural adjustment and reliability and validity test of the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool].《烧伤手部结局工具的中国化、跨文化调适及信效度检验》
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2021 Oct 20;37(10):978-986. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210201-00042.
6
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Self-Efficacy Perception Scale for Administrator Nurses.护士管理者自我效能感量表中文版的信效度研究
Int J Nurs Sci. 2023 Sep 28;10(4):503-510. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2023.09.015. eCollection 2023 Oct.
7
Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the general medication adherence scale (GMAS) in patients with chronic illness.慢性病患者一般药物依从性量表（GMAS）中文版的翻译与验证。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 May;37(5):829-837. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1901680. Epub 2021 Mar 27.
8
[Reliability and validity test of Chinese version of the Karitane parenting confidence scale].[卡力坦尼育儿信心量表中文版的信效度检验]
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Jul 6;55(7):811-817. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20210530-00524.
9
The Chinese version of rating scale of pain expression during childbirth (ESVADOPA): reliability and validity assessment.分娩期疼痛表情评分量表中文版（ESVADOPA）：信效度评估
BMC Nurs. 2024 Jul 30;23(1):520. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02195-2.
10
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the new fear of hypoglycemia scale: FH-15.新版低血糖恐惧量表中文版（FH-15）的信效度
Int J Nurs Sci. 2018 Sep 21;5(4):343-351. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.09.008. eCollection 2018 Oct 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of human-robot interaction self-efficacy scale in Chinese adults.中文版成人人类-机器人交互自我效能量表在中国成年人中的效度和信度
Psicol Reflex Crit. 2024 Sep 26;37(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41155-024-00324-z.

本文引用的文献

1
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
2
Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.重症监护病房中的共同决策：美国危重病医学会和美国胸科学会政策声明
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):188-201. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396.
3
Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions.为患有慢性或长期健康问题的成年人制定个性化护理计划。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 3;2015(3):CD010523. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010523.pub2.
4
Measuring shared decision making: a review of constructs, measures, and opportunities for cardiovascular care.衡量共同决策：心血管护理中概念、测量方法及机遇的综述
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jul;7(4):620-6. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000350. Epub 2014 May 27.
5
Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs.通过共同决策改善医疗服务并降低成本。
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 3;368(1):6-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1209500.
6
Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice.共同决策：一种临床实践模式。
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. Epub 2012 May 23.
7
Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire--physician version (SDM-Q-Doc).共享决策问卷-医师版（SDM-Q-Doc）的制定和心理测量特性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):284-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 3.
8
Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments.共同决策的测量——工具综述
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(4):313-24. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.012. Epub 2011 May 4.
9
Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD): reliability and validity.罗切斯特参与性决策量表（RPAD）：信度与效度
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;3(5):436-42. doi: 10.1370/afm.305.
10
Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement.共同决策：开发用于衡量患者参与度的OPTION量表。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.

罗切斯特参与式决策量表中文版（RPAD）：信效度研究

The Chinese Version of Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD): Reliability and Validity.

作者信息

Guo Xufang, Liu Huan, Shih Yian, Wang Cheng, Gao Chuan, He Zhong

机构信息

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China.

School of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020 Dec 12;2020:4343815. doi: 10.1155/2020/4343815. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1155/2020/4343815
PMID:33381201
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7749781/
Abstract

AIM

This study aims to translate the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) into the Chinese language and to test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the scale in the gynecological clinic.

METHODS

After obtaining the permission of the original author, the Brislin translation model was used to forward-translation and back-translation. Then, an expert group was set up to discuss this scale and result in cross-cultural adaptation. A convenient sampling method was used to select ten doctors working in the gynecological clinic of two top-three hospitals and 20 patients of each doctor. The Rochester Decision Participation Scale was used by the Chinese version for investigation.

RESULTS

The Chinese version of the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale has a Cronbach's coefficient of 0.604 for the total content reliability, the Spearman-Brown coefficient of half-reliability is 0.646, and the Guttman coefficient of half-reliability is 0.612. The retest reliability is 0.922. By exploratory factor analysis, the scale extracted three common factors, and the standard factor load corresponding to each entry is higher than 0.4.

CONCLUSION

The reliability and validity of the Chinese version in the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale are acceptable, which can be used to evaluate doctors "promotion of patients" participation in decision-making.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在将罗切斯特参与决策量表（RPAD）翻译成中文，并在妇科门诊测试该中文版量表的信效度。

方法

在获得原作者许可后，采用Brislin翻译模型进行正向翻译和回译。然后成立专家组对该量表进行讨论，进行跨文化调适。采用便利抽样法，选取两家三甲医院妇科门诊的10名医生，每位医生选取20例患者。使用中文版罗切斯特决策参与量表进行调查。

结果

中文版罗切斯特参与决策量表总内容信度的Cronbach's系数为0.604，半信度的Spearman-Brown系数为0.646，Guttman半信度系数为0.612。重测信度为0.922。通过探索性因素分析，该量表提取出3个共同因素，各条目对应的标准因素载荷均高于0.4。

结论

中文版罗切斯特参与决策量表的信效度可接受，可用于评估医生“促进患者参与决策”的情况。