Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,452

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of a Decision Regret Scale

Brehaut, Jamie C., O'Connor, Annette M., Wood, Timothy J., Hack, Thomas F., Siminoff, Laura, Gordon, Elisa, Feldman-Stewart, Deb·2003·Medical Decision Making
DOI 10.1177/0272989x03256005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. As patients become more involved in health care decisions, there may be greater opportunity for decision regret. The authors could not find a validated, reliable tool for measuring regret after health care decisions. Methods. A5- item scale was administered to 4 patient groups making different health care decisions. Convergent validity was deter- mined by examining the scale's correlation with satisfaction measures, decisional conflict, and health outcome measures. Results. The scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's = 0.81 to 0.92). It correlated strongly with decision satisfaction (r = -0.40 to -0.60), decisional conflict (r = 0.31 to 0.52), and overall rated quality of life (r = -0.25 to - 0.27). Groups differing on feelings about a decision also differed on rated regret: F(2, 190) = 31.1, P < 0.001. Regret was greater among those who changed their decisions than those who did not, t(175) = 16.11, P < 0.001. Conclusions. The scale is a useful indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x03256005

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 7. Guthrie C. Better settle than sorry: the regret aversion theory of litigation behavior . Univ Ill Law Rev. 1999;1999: 43-90 .
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.357 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.357 · Paper page
  3. 10.1017/S0021932000005472 · doi:10.1017/s0021932000005472
  4. 10.2307/2135624 · doi:10.2307/2135624
  5. 10.2307/2134990 · doi:10.2307/2134990
  6. 47. Gilovich T, Medvec VH. Some counterfactual determinants of satisfaction and regret. In: Roese N, Olson J, editors. What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. New York: Wiley ; 2003.
  7. 10.1016/S1088-3371(96)00004-6 · doi:10.1016/s1088-3371(96)00004-6
  8. 59. Oliver R. Regret and hindsight: what might have been and what I knew would be. In: Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 1997. p. 216-236.
  9. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1996.tb00662.x · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1996.tb00662.x
  10. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,452

Metadata

Authors
Brehaut, J. C., O'Connor, A. M., Wood, T. J., Hack, T. F., Siminoff, L., Gordon, E., & Feldman-Stewart, D.
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-07
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
281-292
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
DOI
10.1177/0272989x03256005
OpenAlex
W2057806081
Cited by
1,452
References
58
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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: Validation of a Decision Regret Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x03256005
The paper
Brehaut, J. C., O'Connor, A. M., Wood, T. J., Hack, T. F., Siminoff, L., Gordon, E., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2003). Validation of a Decision Regret Scale. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x03256005

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.