IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i1p51-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Post-decision Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • François Sainfort
  • Bridget C. Booske

Abstract

Measuring satisfaction with a decision after a choice has been made is particularly important for difficult choice situations where there is no "right" decision and/or where long-term consequences are uncertain. While others have developed instruments that pnmarily focus on clinical decisions, the authors developed a scale—the decision-attitude scale—in the context of consumers' choice of health plan. They examined the reliability and validity of this scale using data from a sample of state employees. While the decision-attitude scale has been applied to a health-plan-choice problem only, it can be applied to a variety of other health-related decision problems, because it shares a core set of items with the existing Satisfaction with Decision Scale. The authors identify and discuss the similarities and differences between the two scales. They also observe that each scale uncovers an additional construct not addressed by the other, suggesting that the concept of post-decision satisfaction is multidimensional. A new instrument combining items from both scales may prove the best measure of decision satisfaction for a variety of health-related decision problems. Key words: decision satisfaction. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:51-61)

Suggested Citation

  • François Sainfort & Bridget C. Booske, 2000. "Measuring Post-decision Satisfaction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 51-61, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:51-61
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000107
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lyn M. Van Swol & Paul Hangsan Ahn & Andrew Prahl & Zhenxing Gong, 2021. "Language Use in Group Discourse and Its Relationship to Group Processes," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    2. Franziska Unger & Martina Steul-Fischer & Nadine Gatzert, 2024. "How default effects and decision timing affect annuity uptake and health consciousness," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 49(1), pages 180-211, January.
    3. Rob Eisinga & Manfred Grotenhuis & Ben Pelzer, 2013. "The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(4), pages 637-642, August.
    4. Derya Demirdelen Alrawadieh, 2021. "Does Employability Anxiety Trigger Psychological Distress and Academic Major Dissatisfaction? A Study on Tour Guiding Students," Journal of Tourismology, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 55-71, June.
    5. Wachner, Jonas & Adriaanse, Marieke & Hoven, Mariette van den & de Ridder, Denise, 2022. "Does default organ donation registration compromise autonomous choice? Public responses to a new donor registration system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 899-905.
    6. de Ridder, Denise & Adriaanse, Marieke & van Gestel, Laurens & Wachner, Jonas, 2023. "How does nudging the COVID-19 vaccine play out in people who are in doubt about vaccination?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:51-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.