IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i4p545-550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences with a Single Question: Development and Validation of the MM1

Author

Listed:
  • Laura D. Scherer

    (Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    VA Denver Center for Innovation (COIN), Denver, CO, USA)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Abstract

The 10-item validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS-10) assesses patients’ preferences for aggressive v. more passive approaches to health care. However, because many research or clinical situations do not allow for use of a 10-item scale, we developed a single-item maximizer-minimizer elicitation question (the MM1) based on our experiences describing the construct to patient groups, clinical researchers, and the public. In 2 large samples of US adults ( N = 368 and N = 814), the correlation between MMS-10 scores and the MM1 was .52 and .60, respectively. Both measures were robust predictors of medical preferences in a set of 12 hypothetical scenarios, and both had strong (and roughly equivalent) associations with 7 self-report measures of health care utilization. Our results demonstrate that the MM1 is a valid, brief elicitation of maximizing-minimizing preferences that can be used in clinical or research contexts where the 10-item scale is infeasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura D. Scherer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2020. "Eliciting Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences with a Single Question: Development and Validation of the MM1," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 545-550, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:545-550
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20927700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20927700
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20927700?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacobson, Sophie, 2024. "Policies Can Still Create New Politics: Contemporary Causal Evidence from New York Preschool Parents," OSF Preprints 9nfg7, Center for Open Science.
    2. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    3. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    4. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    5. Ritwik Banerjee & Priyama Majumdar, 2023. "Exponential growth bias in the prediction of COVID‐19 spread and economic expectation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 653-689, April.
    6. Sean F. Ellis & Olesya M. Savchenko & Kent D. Messer, 2022. "Mitigating stigma associated with recycled water," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(3), pages 1077-1099, May.
    7. Chinchanachokchai, Sydney & de Gregorio, Federico, 2020. "A consumer socialization approach to understanding advertising avoidance on social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 474-483.
    8. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    9. Mariken van der Velden & Felicia Loecherbach, 2021. "Epistemic Overconfidence in Algorithmic News Selection," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 182-197.
    10. Bojana Većkalov & Sandra J. Geiger & František Bartoš & Mathew P. White & Bastiaan T. Rutjens & Frenk Harreveld & Federica Stablum & Berkan Akın & Alaa Aldoh & Jinhao Bai & Frida Berglund & Aleša Brat, 2024. "A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1892-1905, October.
    11. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    12. Farjam, Mike & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2023. "Do you really believe that? The effect of economic incentives on the acceptance of real-world data in a polarized context," OSF Preprints sdmhw, Center for Open Science.
    13. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    14. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    15. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    17. Andreas Fügener & Jörn Grahl & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2022. "Cognitive Challenges in Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 678-696, June.
    18. Jerrod M. Penn & Daniel R. Petrolia & J. Matthew Fannin, 2023. "Hypothetical bias mitigation in representative and convenience samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 721-743, June.
    19. Accominotti, Fabien & Tadmon, Daniel, 2020. "How the reification of merit breeds inequality: theory and experimental evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103865, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Daniel L. Carlson & Richard J. Petts, 2022. "US Parents’ Domestic Labor During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(6), pages 2393-2418, December.

    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:40:y:2020:i:4:p:545-550. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.