Measuring healthcare professionals’ perceptions of their ability to adopt shared decision making: Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the IcanSDM questionnaire

Table 3 Missing values, means, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, item difficulty, item discrimination, α if deleted

Item	Completion rate in %	Mean (SD)	Item difficulty	Item discrimi-nation	Skewness	Kurtosis	α if deleted
1. Shared decision making results in longer clinical encounters	100	5.04 (2.47)	0.49	0.40	0.01	-0.89	0.72
2. Patients often prefer that the clinician make the decision	100	4.11 (1.79)	0.43	0.39	0.07	-0.89	0.72
3. Shared decision making does not apply to all patients, nor does it apply to all clinical situations	100	6.03 (2.78)	0.46	0.27	-0.35	-0.97	0.74
4. Communicating scientific data to patients is too complex	100	2.68 (1.90)	0.71	0.50	1.15	2.26	0.70
5. Shared decision making takes up too many resources	97.50	2.60 (1.91)	0.73	0.61	1.28	2.09	0.67
6. Shared decision making is inconsistent with clinical practice guidelines	100	1.89 (1.51)	0.79	0.42	1.19	1.78	0.71
7. Shared decision making is just a passing trend	100	1.91 (1.86)	0.97	0.40	1.98	5.09	0.72
8. During shared decision making, the patient becomes aware of the uncertainty associated with interventions and might become confused	98.75	3.60 (2.25)	0.62	0.47	0.61	-0.41	0.70

Item difficulty reflects the average score relative to the total possible score. Item discrimination reflects the correlation between the item score and the total test score excluding the item in question.’Alpha if deleted for each item’ reflects a recalculation of the Cronbach's alpha after excluding this item

ISSN: 1472-6947