IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i4p470-481_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DOSPERT+M: A survey of medical risk attitudes in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Rosman, Adam
  • Garcia, Maggie
  • Lee, Sam
  • Butler, Shoshana
  • Schwartz, Alan

Abstract

Background: The Domain-Specific Risk Taking scale (DOSPERT) has been recommended as a tool for measuring risk attitudes in medical studies, but does not contain items specific to health care. Butler, et al. (2012) developed a medical risk domain subscale for DOSPERT. Objective: To characterize medical risk attitudes in a nationally-representative U.S. sample using the full DOSPERT scale with the medical risk domain add-on (DOSPERT+M), and examine associations with other risk domains. Methods: Members of a nationally-representative online panel (KnowledgePanel®) were randomized to complete pairs of DOSPERT+M tasks (risk attitude, risk perception, expected benefits). We explored relationships among domains through correlational and factor analysis; we tested the hypothesis that the medical risk domain and DOSPERT’s health/safety domains were not highly correlated. Participants: Three hundred forty-four panelists. Results: The medical risk domain subscale had low inter-item reliability in the risk-taking task and moderate inter-item reliability in the other tasks. Medical risk domain scores were poorly correlated with the DOSPERT health/safety domain. Exploratory factor analysis largely recovered the expected DOSPERT domain structure. Conclusion: Attitudes toward risky medical activities may constitute a distinct domain from those measured by the standard DOSPERT items. Additional work is required to develop a medical risk subscale with higher inter-item reliability.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosman, Adam & Garcia, Maggie & Lee, Sam & Butler, Shoshana & Schwartz, Alan, 2013. "DOSPERT+M: A survey of medical risk attitudes in the United States," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 470-481, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:470-481_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500005313/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:470-481_6. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.