The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API)
Open accessAbstract
Objective Validation of the German version of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API), a measure of patients’ preferences for decision making and information seeking. Methods Stepwise confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on a sample of patients (n = 1592) treated in primary care for depression (n = 186), surgical and internal medicine inpatients (n = 811) and patients with minor trauma treated in an emergency department (n = 595). An initial test of the model was done on calculation and validation halves of the sample. Both local and global indexes‐of‐fit suggested modifications to the scale. The scale was modified and re‐tested in the calculation sample and confirmed in the validation sample. Subgroup analyses for age, gender and type of treatment setting were also performed. Results The confirmatory analysis led to a modified version of the API with better local and global indexes‐of‐fit for samples of German‐speaking patients. Two items of the sub‐scale, ‘preference for decision‐making’, and one item of the sub‐scale, ‘preference for information seeking’, showed very low reliability scores and were deleted. Thus, several global indexes‐of‐fit clearly improved significantly. The modified scale was confirmed on the validation sample with acceptable to good indices of fit. Results of subgroup analyses indicated that no adaptations were necessary. Discussion and conclusions This first confirmatory analysis for a German‐speaking population showed that the API was improved by the removal of several items. There were theoretically plausible explanations for this improvement suggesting that the modifications might also be appropriate in English and other language versions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,120
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
(2013) · Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz · doi:10.1007/103.1437-1588 · Cited by 11,796
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003) · Department of Psychology - University of Koblenz-Landau · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.12784 · Cited by 8,975
Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition
Byrne, B. M. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315757421 · Cited by 4,653
Byrne, B. M. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203805534 · Cited by 4,016
Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play?
Degner, L. F., & Sloan, J. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9 · Cited by 1,008
Ende, J., Kazis, L., Ash, A., & Moskowitz, M. A. (1989) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02596485 · Cited by 946
Cited by
Bidmon, S., & Terlutter, R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4127 · Cited by 389
Measurement of shared decision making – a review of instruments
Scholl, I., Loon, M. K.-V., Sepucha, K., Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Härter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2011) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.012 · Cited by 314
Self-citationHealth Information–Seeking Behavior of Seniors Who Use the Internet: A Survey
Medlock, S., Eslami, S., Askari, M., Arts, D. L., Sent, D., de Rooij, S. E., & Abu-Hanna, A. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3749 · Cited by 237
Esin, K., & Ayyıldız, F. (2022) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00628-4 · Cited by 41
Arslan, N., Esin, K., & Ayyıldız, F. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22507-8 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, D., Kriston, L., Loh, A., Spies, C., Scheibler, F., Wills, C., & Härter, M.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 234-243
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2156896136
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00584.x
- The paper
- Simon, D., Kriston, L., Loh, A., Spies, C., Scheibler, F., Wills, C., & Härter, M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy‐Preference‐Index (API). Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00584.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.