“Doctor, I disagree”: Development and preliminary validation of a patient argumentativeness scale

Nanon Labrie*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients' predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer's (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors' provision of argumentation, patients' perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)336-353
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Argumentation in Context
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2019

Keywords

  • Doctor-patient communication
  • Medical consultation
  • Patient argumentativeness
  • Patient-centeredness
  • Scale development

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of '“Doctor, I disagree”: Development and preliminary validation of a patient argumentativeness scale'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this