CollaboRATE is a 3-item instrument that measures patients’ perceived shared decision-making. Compared to other shared decision-making measures, it demonstrates strong content validity and is brief enough for use in busy clinical environments. However, no Korean version is currently available.
Objectives:
This study aimed to translate CollaboRATE into Korean and evaluate its psychometric properties among multimorbid patients with hypertension.
Methods:
The original version of CollaboRATE was translated into Korean using a forward- and back-translation process. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 6 patients. A cross-sectional survey was then conducted with 503 patients to evaluate the psychometric properties. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and structural validity was examined with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Construct validity was evaluated with hypothesis testing.
Results:
Based on the cognitive interviews, several phrases were revised to improve item clarity. Cronbach’s alpha for the Korean version of CollaboRATE was 0.93. Factor analysis suggested a one-factor structure. As hypothesized, CollaboRATE scores were positively correlated with scores of the Shared Decision Making Q-9 (r = 0.67), the Patient Activation Measure (r = 0.17), and the Partners in Health Scale measuring self-care (r = 0.36), supporting its construct validity.
Conclusion:
The Korean version of CollaboRATE is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making.
ElwynGLaitnerSCoulterAWalkerEWatsonPThomsonR.Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5146
2.
Bomhof-RoordinkHGärtnerFRStiggelboutAMPieterseAH.Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e031763. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
3.
ElwynGDurandMASongJ, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891
4.
BarryMJEdgman-LevitanS.Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780-781. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1109283
5.
PerronMEHudonCRoux-LevyPHPoitrasME.Shared decision-making with patients with complex care needs: a scoping review. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):390. doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02633-9
6.
FixGMCohnESSolomonJL, et al. The role of comorbidities in patients’ hypertension self-management. Chronic Illn. 2014;10(2):81-92. doi:10.1177/1742395313496591
7.
ShayLALafataJE.Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114-131. doi:10.1177/0272989x14551638
8.
MarinkovićVRogersHLewandowskiRStevićI. Shared decision making. In: KriksciunieneDSakalauskasV, eds. Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Person-Centered Healthcare. Springer; 2022:71-90.
9.
Oshima LeeEEmanuelEJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):6-8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1209500
10.
GiapTTParkMJungJKimJDoanTT.Shared decision-making in long-term care: a systematic review of assessment instruments. Geriatr Nurs. 2024;60:156-176. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.08.020
11.
GärtnerFRBomhof-RoordinkHSmithIPSchollIStiggelboutAMPieterseAH.The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191747. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191747
12.
ElwynGBarrPJGrandeSWThompsonRWalshTOzanneEM.Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(1):102-107. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
13.
BarrPJThompsonRWalshTGrandeSWOzanneEMElwynG.The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e2. doi:10.2196/jmir.3085
14.
ForcinoRCBarrPJO’MalleyAJ, et al. Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: results from three clinical settings in the United States. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):82-89. doi:10.1111/hex.12588
15.
De Las CuevasCMundalIBetancortMLara-CabreraML. Assessment of shared decision-making in community mental health care: validation of the CollaboRATE. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20(3):262-270. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.06.004
16.
Ruiz YanziMVBaraniMSFrancoJVAVazquez PeñaFRTerrasaSAKopitowskiKS.Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making. Health Expect. 2019;22(2):193-200. doi:10.1111/hex.12842
17.
HurleyEABradley-EwingABickfordC, et al. Measuring shared decision-making in the pediatric outpatient setting: psychometric performance of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE among English and Spanish speaking parents in the US Midwest. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(4):742-748. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.10.015
18.
UbbinkDTvan AsbeckEVAartsJWM, et al. Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(7):2475-2479. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007
19.
LeeMOhBYouM.Consultation time and communication patterns in outpatient care: an observational study in South Korea. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025;25(1):1159. doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13431-z
20.
KwonYNamSShinSChoYYoonJYooS-H.Shared decision-making in Korean healthcare: a scoping review. J Korean Med Sci. 2025;40(37):e273. doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e273
21.
PolitDFYangFM.Measurement and the Measurement of Change: A Primer for the Health Professions. Wolters Kluwer; 2016.
22.
KimCLeeMYooW.Common combinations of chronic diseases in multimorbidity and their effect on healthcare cost in Korea. Korean J Health Econ Policy. 2014;20(4):81-102.
23.
WillisGB.Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Sage Publications; 2004.
KristonLSchollIHölzelLSimonDLohAHärterM.The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94-99. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034
26.
JeonM-KAhnJ-WParkY-HLeeM-K.Validity and reliability of the Korean Version of the Partners In Health Scale (PIH-K). Chunghwanja Kanho Hakhoe chi [J Korean Critical Care Nurs]. 2019;12(2):1-12. doi:10.34250/jkccn.2019.12.2.1
27.
HibbardJHStockardJMahoneyERTuslerM.Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005-1026. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x
28.
Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs & National Health Insurance Service. Korea Health Panel Survey 2020: Questionnaire. Accessed August 13, 2025. https://www.khp.re.kr:444/
29.
KimH-Y.Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(1):52-54. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
30.
HayesAFCouttsJJ.Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. but. . . . Commun Meth Measure. 2020;14(1):1-24. doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
31.
GoretzkoDPhamHBuehnerM.Exploratory factor analysis: current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:3510-3521. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2
32.
FabrigarLWegenerDMacCallumRCStrahanEJ.Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Meth. 1999;4(3):272-299. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.4.3.272
HuLtBentlerPM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6(1):1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
35.
SchoberPBoerCSchwarteLA.Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-1768. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
36.
PoonBYShortellSMRodriguezHP.Patient activation as a pathway to shared decision-making for adults with diabetes or cardiovascular disease. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(3):732-742. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05351-6
37.
DeinzerAVeelkenRKohnenRSchmiederRE.Is a shared decision-making approach effective in improving hypertension management?J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2009;11(5):266-270. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2009.00112.x
38.
BjörkMKnutssonSOdzakovicE, et al. Validation of two brief instruments (the SURE and CollaboRATE) to measure shared decision-making in patients with restless legs syndrome. J Sleep Res. 2024;33(4):e14071. doi:10.1111/jsr.14071
39.
BroströmAPakpourAHNilsenPHedbergBUlanderM.Validation of CollaboRATE and SURE – two short questionnaires to measure shared decision making during CPAP initiation. J Sleep Res. 2019;28(5):e12808. doi:10.1111/jsr.12808
40.
RuhnkeGWTakHJMeltzerDO.Association of preferences for participation in decision-making with care satisfaction among hospitalized patients. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2018766. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.18766
41.
LeeJC.2020 Korean physician survey. Res Inst Healthcare Policy Korean Med Assoc. 2021;19(4):60-67.
42.
XiaoLPengMLiuYZhangL.Information, deliberation, and decisional control preferences for participation in medical decision-making and its influencing factors among Chinese cancer patients. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1725-1736. doi:10.1111/hex.13312
43.
RakeEABoxICDreesensD, et al. Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(9):2860-2870. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.05.009
44.
ChangCLParkBKKimSS.Conversational analysis of medical discourse in rehabilitation: a study in Korea. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013;36(1):24-30. doi:10.1179/2045772312Y.0000000051
45.
LiHLiDZhaiMLinLCaoZ.Associations among online health information seeking behavior, online health information perception, and health service utilization: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e66683. doi:10.2196/66683
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
