Developing And Evaluating PDRQ And DDPRQ In Chinese Version

Objective: To develop PDRQ-15 (scale for patients with patient-doctor relationship) andDDPRQ-10 (scale for the doctor with patient-doctor relationship) which are used widely inphysician-patient relationship in the abroad into Chinese version and evaluate their reliabilityand validity from the psychometric aspect, and form the Chinese version of the patient-doctorrelationship scale, so as to provide an effective, quantifiable tools for Chinese physician-patientrelationship survey.Methods: According to the principle of west scale turning into Chinese to establish the ofPDRQ-15 and DDPRQ-10 Chinese version. Author randomly surveyed 150 patients, 100doctors at three hospital in Shanxi Province. Health management graduate students and authorserved as investigator. Author used a unified approach and on the basis of the patients obtaininginformed consent, author use repeated the survey method to investigate the implementation ofsurveys. Scoring method using the original scoring method of the two scales, pre-survey samplesize was 20 patients and 20 doctors, mainly to study the feasibility of the Chinese version Scaleand degree of difficulty. Results using SPSS13.0 statistical package for analysis of data. Authoruse the test-retest reliability and internal consistency Cronbach'sαcoefficient evaluation of itsreliability, and using the construct validity and discriminant validity examine the two scalevalidity.Results: 1. The documents PDRQ-15 scale and DDPRQ-10 scale re-translated to English isconsistent with the original version. 90 Percent of the subjects consider it easy or very easy toanswer the questions of PDRQ-15 scale and 85 Percent of the subjects consider it easy or veryeasy to answer the questions of DDPRQ-10 scale. 2. The test-retest reliability for the threedomains of PDRQ-15 scales and the overall scales were 0.982, 0.952, 0.932, 0.990, (P<0.000*) ,which was statistically significant and was high test-retest reliability. The test-retestreliability for the three domains of DDPRQ-10 Scale and the overall scales were 0.982, 0.979,0.974, 0.959, (P<0.000*), which was statistically significant and was high test-retest reliabilitytoo. 3. The internal consistency of PDRQ-15 scale overall, satisfaction part ,the accessible partof the doctor and the patient's attitude on the part of medical symptoms were 0.745,0.869,0.788,0.560, P<0.000 *, which have adequate internal consistency,and after remove the item 14th and 15th the internal consistency were higher than before. 4. The internal consistencyof DDPRQ-10 scale overall, part one, part two and part three were 0.690, 0.676, 0.644, 0.663,P<0.000*, which have adequate internal consistency, and after remove the item 7th, the internalconsistency were higher than before. 5. In construct validity, factorial analysis and principalcomponent analysis of the 15 items of the PDRQ-15 scale was made. Factorial analysis of the15items showed a three factor, jointly accounting for 54.402% of the total variance. Confirmatoryfactor analysis of the 15 items of the PDRQ-15 scale was made. The result showed when the 15items of the PDRQ-15 scale remove the item 14th and 15th, the two-factor model is ideal.Factorial analysis and principal component analysis of the10 items of the DDPRQ-10 scale wasmade. Factorial analysis of the 10 items showed a three factor, jointly accounting for 52.988%of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 10 items of the DDPRQ-10 scale wasmade. The result showed showed all indicators of the three-factor model for the DDPRQ-10scale are all good, except for the item 10th, because the items between the dimensions havenegative correlation. This indicates that the setting of the item 10th are unreasonable, so weconsider that these two items should remove or modify. 6. According to the investigative objectof the PDRQ-15 scale and the DDPRQ-10 scale classification, the PDRQ-15 scale have nosignificant difference in the score of gender, educational level, while there was strongdifference (P<0.05) in the way, on which patient see a doctor, then the discriminatory validitywas confirmed to be better. DDPRQ-10 scale was no significant difference in the gender score,but the scores in rank of the doctor was significant differences (P<0.05), then the diseriminatoryvalidity was confirmed to be better.Conclusion: PDRQ-15 scale and DDPRQ-10 Chinese version scale reliability and validity ofthe evaluation results showed that PDRQ-15 scale can basically reflect the three dimensions ofphysician-patient relationship, but removing item 14th and 15th would be more effective;DDPRQ-10 scale basically reflect three dimensions of physician-patient relationship, but theitem 7^th and 10th have problems on the set and we can consider removing them or reset them.