Table 2.
Option item response (%) for two observers, Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation (ICC)
| OPTION item | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Kappa* | ICC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The clinician draws attention to an identified problem as one that requires a decision‐making process | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 96.4 | 3.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.53 (0.52) | 0.33 |
| Observer 2 | 93.6 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 2. The clinician states that there is more than one way to deal with the identified problem (‘equipoise’) | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 91.8 | 6.4 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | 0.88 (0.88) | 0.93 |
| Observer 2 | 91.8 | 6.4 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 3. The clinician assesses the patient's preferred approach to receiving information to assist decision making | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.98 (0.98) | 0.98 |
| Observer 2 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4. The clinician lists ‘options’, which can include the choice of ‘no action’ | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 90 | 9.1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.64 (0.76) | 0.77 |
| Observer 2 | 84.5 | 11.8 | 3.6 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5. The clinician explains the pros and cons of options to the patient (taking ‘no action’ is an option) | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 95.5 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.70 (0.70) | 0.70 |
| Observer 2 | 91.8 | 8.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 6. The clinician explores the patient's expectations (or ideas) about how the problem(s) are to be managed | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 95.5 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.56 (0.56) | 0.56 |
| Observer 2 | 98.2 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 7. The clinician explores the patient's concerns (fears) about how problem(s) are to be managed | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 95.5 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.51 (0.59) | 0.61 |
| Observer 2 | 92.7 | 7.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8. The clinician checks that the patient has understood the information | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 91.8 | 8.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 (0.10) | 0.11 |
| Observer 2 | 36.4 | 61.8 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9. The clinician offers the patient explicit opportunities to ask questions during the decision‐making process | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 56.4 | 43.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.45 (0.48) | 0.48 |
| Observer 2 | 60 | 38.2 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 10. The clinician elicits the patient's preferred level of involvement in decision making | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.98 (0.98) | 0.98 |
| Observer 2 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 11. The clinician indicates the need for a decision‐making (or deferring) stage | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.84 (0.84) | 0.84 |
| Observer 2 | 91.8 | 8.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 12. The clinician indicates the need to review the decision (or deferment) | |||||||
| Observer 1 | 79.1 | 20 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 (0.67) | 0.61 |
| Observer 2 | 79.1 | 20.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
*Kappa scores are for five‐point scale agreement. Scores in brackets are for agreement across binary scale points (no involvement/involvement).