Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40842612›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Psychometric re-evaluation of the German version of the Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty Scale.

David Zybarth, Laura Inhestern, Corinna Bergelt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David ZybarthDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Laura InhesternDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Corinna BergeltDepartment of Medical Psychology, Greifswald University Hospital, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Uncertainties are an integral part of medicine and can lead to adverse effects if not addressed. However, assessing these uncertainties can be a challenging task. The Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty (PRU) scale is a widely used tool to assess behavioral and emotional reactions to uncertainty. This study aims to examine the factorial structure and re-evaluate the psychometric properties of the German version in a heterogeneous sample of physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey among German physicians, irrespective of their medical specialties. We calculated means, standard deviations, and difficulty and discrimination indices for the items. We computed Cronbach's alpha for all subscales. We used confirmatory factor analyses to assess factorial validity due to discrepancies in the assignment of item 5 between the original and the German versions. In the original version, item 5 was assigned to the subscale "anxiety due to uncertainty." In contrast, in the, based on exploratory factor analysis, it was assigned to the subscale "concern about bad outcomes." We tested three models: Model 1 (the original version), Model 2 (the German version), and Model 3 (which excludes item 5). Results: A total of 136 physicians (59% were women) from 22 different medical specialties participated in this survey. The German version exhibited good psychometric properties. Most item difficulties were acceptable, and all items demonstrated good item discrimination indices. The Cronbach's alpha values were satisfactory for all subscales. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a Heywood case for all models, which necessitated setting the variance of item 14 to zero. The fit indices for Models 1 and 2 were insufficient. Model 3 showed superior fit indices (robust root mean square error of approximation = 0.064, robust Tucker-Lewis index = 0.952, robust comparative fit index = 0.962). The Akaike's information criterion and Bayesian information criterion statistics indicated a substantially better fit for Model 3 compared to Models 1 and 2. Discussion: The 14-item German version of the Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty Scale demonstrated good psychometric properties in a heterogeneous sample of physicians. It serves as a valuable tool for assessing uncertainty and facilitating international comparisons of uncertainty scores and training effects. However, the German version appears to require further adaptation, particularly regarding item 5.

Indexed as

physiciansPhysicians’ Reaction to Uncertainty Scalepsychometricssurveys and questionnairesuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40842612
PMCPMC12365602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.