The Brief Subjective Decision Quality Measure (BSDQ) is a patient-reported measure of decision quality. The instrument covers five domains of decision quality: regret and satisfaction, as well as perceived adequacy of information, time, and involvement. Multiple decisions can be evaluated within each domain. The current measure evaluates six breast cancer testing and treatment-related decisions, including 1) Having a BRCA genetic test, 2) Having an MRI, 3) Having a 21-gene assay test, 4) Type of surgery, 5) Having chemotherapy, and 6) Having radiation therapy. Note that the response scale can be reduced to a more compact five-point scale if survey space or participant burden is a concern.
Regret and Satisfaction domains: The Satisfaction items are scored so that higher scores indicate more satisfaction (1-7). The regret item is reverse-coded (7-1).
Information, Time, and Involvement domains: The criterion response is 4, “just right”. “Not enough” and “too much” are considered an equally “low” quality decision compared to “just right”. To score these items, first recode values 5-7 into 3-1 (respectively) and retain the “just right” value of 4. Second, recode these now 1-4 values to match the seven-point scale of the other domains, so that (1=1), (2=3), (3=5), and (4=7).
To calculate a composite decision quality score for a particular decision: Sum the ratings of all administered decision quality domains per decision. and divide by the total number of domains completed. Composite scores will range from 1-7, with higher scores indicating greater subjective decision quality. Scores can be reported for each decision separately or combined into an overall decision making score when appropriate.
To cite this instrument, please use the following reference:
Resnicow K, Abrahamse P, Tocco RS, Hawley S, Griggs J, Janz N, Fagerlin A, Wilson A, Ward KC, Gabram SG, Katz S. Development and psychometric properties of a brief measure of subjective decision quality for breast cancer treatment. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2014;14:110.
Please note that this instrument has not been psychometrically validated and may change over time.