IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i5p730-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Decision Making Control Instrument to Assess Voluntary Consent

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria A. Miller
  • Richard F. Ittenbach
  • Diana Harris
  • William W. Reynolds
  • Tom L. Beauchamp
  • Mary Frances Luce
  • Robert M. Nelson

Abstract

Background . The decision to participate in a research intervention or to undergo medical treatment should be both informed and voluntary. Objective . The aim of the present study was to develop an instrument to measure the perceived voluntariness of parents making decisions for their seriously ill children. Methods . A total of 219 parents completed questionnaires within 10 days of making such a decision at a large, urban tertiary care hospital for children. Parents were presented with an experimental form of the Decision Making Control Instrument (DMCI), a measure of the perception of voluntariness. Data obtained from the 28-item form were analyzed using a combination of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques. Results . The 28 items were reduced to 9 items representing 3 oblique dimensions: Self-Control, Absence of Control, and Others’ Control. The hypothesis that the 3-factor covariance structure of our model was consistent with that of the data was supported. Internal consistency for the scale as a whole was high (0.83); internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.68 to 0.87. DMCI scores were associated with measures of affect, trust, and decision self-efficacy, supporting the construct validity of the new instrument. Conclusion . The DMCI is an important new tool that can be used to inform our understanding of the voluntariness of treatment and research decisions in medical settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria A. Miller & Richard F. Ittenbach & Diana Harris & William W. Reynolds & Tom L. Beauchamp & Mary Frances Luce & Robert M. Nelson, 2011. "The Decision Making Control Instrument to Assess Voluntary Consent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 730-741, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:5:p:730-741
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11398666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11398666
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11398666?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
    ---><---

    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:31:y:2011:i:5:p:730-741. 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.