See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234665209

Development and Validation of a Decision-Making

Questionnaire

Article  in  British Journal of Guidance & Counselling · January 2009

DOI: 10.1080/03069880902956959

CITATIONS READS

32 24,571

4 authors, including:

María Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedano María Soria-Oliver

Universidad Publica de Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
20 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Antonio Humberto Closas

National University of the Northeast
20 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Workload and decision making View project

Viralidad en Facebook View project

All content following this page was uploaded by María Soria-Oliver on 16 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
Vol. 37, No. 3, August 2009, 357
373

Development and validation of a decision-making questionnaire

Marı́a Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarragaa*, Marı́a Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedanoa,
Marı́a Soria Olivera and Antonio Closasb
a
Psychology and Pedagogy, University Public of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain; bNational University
of Northeast, Chaco, Argentina
(Received 11 June 2008; final form received 6 February 2009)

The ‘Decision-Making Questionnaire’ (DMQ) was developed and validated in

order to examine the factors that affect decision making. The investigation was
carried out with two samples, one of 170 participants and the other of 425 of both
sexes. Each sample was divided into three age ranges: young students (18
25
years), adults (26
60 years), and seniors (61
75 years). Psychometric analyses
revealed satisfactory internal consistency and a first-order factor structure
comprising 10 scales: Uncertainty, Time/money pressure, Information and goals,
Consequences of the decision, Motivation, Self-regulation, Cognition, Emotion,
Social pressure, and Work pressure. These scales in turn yielded a second-order
factor structure of Task, Subject, and Context. The results highlight the ways in
which youths, adults, and seniors are influenced by diverse factors when making
decisions. They also suggest that men are more likely than women to seek and
analyse information, whereas women place higher value on the available time and
money. The article concludes that the DMQ examines the factors that have the
most influence on professional decisions and it could guide adolescents in the
vocational decision process.
Keywords: decision making; task factor; subject factor; context factor; uncertainty

Knowledge about the variables that affect decision-making is important, both for
science and for individuals. For science, because it provides information to enable us
to understand, explain, and evaluate one of the most complex cognitive mechanisms,
and for individuals, because it helps them make efficient and appropriate decisions in
their daily and work lives (Byrnes, 1998; Herr & Cramer, 1996). For example, let us
consider three decisions that one might face in the course of one’s life: (1) Which
career should I choose? (2) Is this person guilty or innocent? (3) How should I invest
my money? In each situation, we should examine the factors that can influence the
decisions we make.
Research on decision making initially focused on normative models. Such models
indicated how people should make decisions and they predicted the success of the
decisions as a function of whether or not individuals behaved in real life the same as
they did in the laboratory. This kind of thinking is limited and it could not explain
how people actually make decisions in real, dynamic environments. Recently,
descriptive naturalistic models have been developed that emphasise both the features

*Corresponding author. Email: mlsa@unavarra.es

ISSN 0306-9885 print/ISSN 1469-3534 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03069880902956959
http://www.informaworld.com
358 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

of the context in which decisions are made and the role in decision making of
experience and personal competence (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Pruitt, 1996; Cohen,
1995; Klein, 1997a, 1997b; Zsambok & Klein, 1997). Zsambok (1997) provided a
succinct definition, stating ‘Naturalistic decision-making (NDM) is the way people
use their experience to make decisions in field settings’ (p. 4).
Orasanu and Connolly (1993) identified eight factors that characterise decision
making in naturalistic environments: ill-structured problems, uncertain and dynamic
environments, shifting and competing goals, multiple event-feedback loops, time
constraint, high stakes, multiple players, and, lastly, organisational norms and goals
that must be balanced against the decision maker’s personal choice. From a
naturalistic perspective, some, if not all of these features may be present in a decision.
Following the guidelines of Byrnes (1998), Cannon-Bowers et al. (1996) and
Cannon-Bowers and Salas (2002), these and other characteristics can be classified as
variables associated with task demands, with subject demands, and with context
demands. Task variables are associated with the nature of the decision itself, for
instance, the uncertainty involved in each alternative, pressure of time and available
money, quantity and quality of the information, proposed goals, and possible
consequences of the decision. Subject or decision maker characteristics include the
performers’ internal factors: motivation, thorough self-regulation of the decision
stages, crucial information processing, expertise in a certain domain, and the
emotions that almost always accompany a decision. Finally, the environmental
characteristics define the context in which the decision takes place; specifically,
factors that are not directly a part of the decision task itself: social and work
influences and distracting events. According to these authors, this distinction of the
three sources of variables that characterise naturalistic decisions is useful to study
and measure naturalistic decision making.
Most naturalistic research has been carried out with adults and, to a lesser degree,
with youths and seniors. However, it should be taken into account that all three age
groups are equally relevant in this process. There is some debate about whether there
are differences among them. The authors who believe there are differences include
Dror, Katona, and Mungur (1998), Finucane, Kaiser, Slovic, and Schmidt (2005),
and Gardner, Scherer, and Tester (1989). Finucane et al. (2005) showed that a large
amount of age-related variance in decision tasks could be accounted for by
exogenous social variables, health measures, basic cognitive skills, and attitudinal
measures. Mather, Knight, and McCaffrey (2005) suggested that diverse goals affect
the comparison processes of younger and older adults. The authors who state that
there are no differences between these age groups are represented by Chen and Sun
(2003) and Moshman (1993). These authors base their opinion on the fact that older
people usually use strategies when they think this will allow them to compensate for
their limitations in working memory. Despite this controversy, age is important in
research from the naturalistic perspective because this approach is chiefly based on
the individual’s competence, and competence is normally acquired with age.
In a society that is moving towards social equality of men and women, it is
necessary to collect more data about the incidence of sex in the diverse factors that
intervene in the decision-making process. As with age, scientific literature offers
contradictory opinions about this issue. Some significant sex differences have been
identified, although most of them are small (Hatala & Case, 2000; Hawkins & Power,
1999). Women may be more influenced by the environment, may dedicate more time
to the decision because they are more hesitant, may seek more information and focus
 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 359

more on the process (Gill, Stockard, Johnson, & Williams, 1987; Rassin & Muris,
2005; Wood, 1990).
As each study analyses decisions of a different nature, such a diversity of results in
the studies that relate decision making to age and sex is not surprising. However, this
also makes it more difficult to generalise the results of these studies.
Upon analysing the naturalistic perspective of decision making, we observed the
lack of measurement instruments in this field. Other authors also consider that
decision making is at an interesting turning point, although there are some deficits in
its measurement. Therefore, and considering that people generally have very little
information about the variables that affect their decisions (Zsambok, 1997), it seemed
important to develop and validate a questionnaire to collect data about the main
factors that affect the process of decision making. However, taking into account that
real decisions are so varied
for example, they can concern health, finance, and
nutrition
we thought that, initially, it would be more useful to elaborate a
questionnaire that could be applied across a broad array of decisions.
This study mainly follows the guideline proposed by Cannon-Bowers et al.
(1996), who, as mentioned, consider that decision making can be characterised by at
least three sources of variables: those associated with the decision or task, those
associated with the decision maker, and those associated with the environments in
which the decision occurs. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was: (a) to
develop a questionnaire (the ‘Decision-Making Questionnaire’ [DMQ]) to assess the
importance that individuals assign to the factors that determine the decision-making
process; and (b) to determine whether there were significant differences due to the
variables of age and sex in the factors evaluated by this questionnaire. With regard to
this latter goal, our hypothesis is affirmative, that is, we expect to find a variety of
responses in the importance that individuals, depending on their age and sex, assign
to the factors that affect the decision process.

Method
Participants
Sample 1
This sample comprised 170 individuals of both sexes (88 men and 82 women) and
three developmental stages (36 youths, aged 18 to 25; 113 adults, aged 26 to 60; and
21 seniors, aged 61 to 75). The youths were university students; the adults were
professionals (lawyers, journalists, doctors, business managers, police officers,
firemen), and the seniors had performed various intermediate professions and crafts.
We performed the first evaluation of the psychometric characteristics of the DMQ,
version A, with this sample of individuals, who were selected according to their
availability to the investigators at the time.

Sample 2
This sample comprised 425 individuals within the same age and educational ranges
as Sample 1, of both sexes (222 men and 203 women). The youths were randomly
selected from the study plans of the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences of the
Public University of Navarre (173 students). The adults were selected at their work
places (40 lawyers, 35 journalists, 30 doctors, 33 business managers, 29 police officers,
360 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

and 41 firemen), and the seniors from various social centres (44 persons). We
statistically evaluated the DMQ, version B, with this sample.

Questionnaire development
The questionnaire was developed in four phases. In the first phase, the scientific
literature on the construct of decision making was comprehensively reviewed by
means of the ERIC and PSICLIT databases and The Twelfth Mental Measurements
Yearbook (Conoley & Impara, 1995). Thus, we gained a sufficiently extensive view of
the factors that exert the most influence on decisions, and which were also useful to
validate the content of the questionnaire. The most frequently consulted authors
were Baron (1994, 1995), Byrnes (1998), Cannon-Bowers et al. (1996), Ganzel (1999),
Klein (1997a, 1997b), and Klein, Orasanu, Calderwood, and Zsambok (1993). Based
on the results of this examination, 103 items were elaborated, grouped into three
factors: task, subject, and context.
In the second phase, six experts examined the 103 items to detect words and
expressions that might be difficult to understand, ambiguous or awkwardly phrased
items, and to solve any difficulties of the questionnaire, as a whole, regarding
presentation, typeface, etc. On the basis of the external professionals’ quantitative
and qualitative suggestions, we changed the terms of some items, their number, and
the range of response interval. The final result of this phase was the ‘Decision-
Making Questionnaire’, version A, comprising 84 items, grouped into 15 subfactors
or scales: uncertainty, time pressure, money pressure, task complexity, quantity of
information, multiple goals, consequences of the decision, motivation, self-regula-
tion, cognition, emotion, experience, social pressure, pressure from other people, and
pressure from work rules. The items of the questionnaire are rated on a 9-point Likert
scale, where 1 stands for not at all important, and 9 for very important.
In the third phase, we began the psychometric study of the DMQ, version A, with
the pilot Sample 1. We calculated reliability, means, correlations, and performed first-
and second-order exploratory factor analysis. As a result of this statistical analysis,
we reduced the questionnaire to 74 items, with 10 first-order subfactors and 3
second-order factors. This comprised the DMQ, version B, which was analysed in the
next phase.
In the fourth phase, the DMQ, version B, was examined statistically and
qualitatively, using the data from Sample 2. From these analyses, the definitive
‘Decision-Making Questionnaire’, comprising 64 items, 10 subfactors and 3 factors,
was derived. The maximum score of the DMQ is 576 points. The importance that the
participant assigns to the factors measured by the questionnaire is scored according
to the following criteria: not at all important, between 1 and 192 points; average
importance, between 192 and 384 points, and very important, between 385 and 576
points. Differential analyses of age and sex were also carried out with this
questionnaire.
The DMQ was applied in the two samples as follows: it was administered in
groups to the university students during their normal class schedule; and individually
to both groups of adults: the professionals at their workplace and the retired people
at various social centres for the third age. All the participants expressed a positive
attitude towards the questionnaire. The administration of the questionnaire required
between 15 and 20 minutes. The procedure guaranteed participants’ anonymity.
 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 361

Results
Psychometric analysis of the DMQ, version A
The Cronbach alpha coefficients of the DMQ, version A, provided indexes between
.55 (social pressure) and .81 (self-regulation) for the subfactors, and between .74
(context) and .83 (subject) for the factors. The alpha coefficient for the total
questionnaire was .87. These values are acceptable, taking into account the number of
participants in Sample 1 and the fact that the items were being statistically analysed
for the first time.
The item-subfactor, item-factor, and item-total questionnaire correlations re-
vealed an acceptable degree of item homogeneity, as most of the items reached values
higher than .40. The correlations among subfactors and factors were also fairly high,
ranging between .44 and .79, which indicates theoretical and empirical coherence of
the questionnaire. As the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin goodness-of-fit index yielded an
adequate value
x(3486) 10,000.72, pB.000, and the KMO index a value of a.62

factor analysis with Varimax rotation and maximum likelihood extraction was
performed. This analysis revealed the presence of 10 components that accounted for
56.39% of the total variance of the DMQ, version A. The following subfactors were
retained: (a) uncertainty; (b) time/money pressure; (c) information and goals, which
integrate the complexity of the task, the amount of information and multiple goals;
(d) consequences of the decision; (e) motivation; (f) self-regulation, which integrates
self-regulation and experience; (g) cognition; (h) emotion; (i) social pressure, which
integrates social pressure and pressure by other persons; and (j) work pressure, which
corresponds to work rules.
After verifying the feasibility of an exploratory second-order factor analysis, its
results confirmed the presence of three broader factors that account for 75.13% of
the total variance. These factors are: (a) Task (37.15%), which comprises the
subfactors of uncertainty, time/money pressure, information and goals, and
consequences of the decision; (b) Subject (24.17%), which refers to the psychological
aspects of motivation, self-regulation, cognition, and emotion; and (c) Context
(13.81%), which comprises the subfactors of social pressure and work pressure.
As a result of the analysis carried out on the pilot sample, we decided to accept
the new structure of the DMQ, version B: 74 items, 10 subfactors, and 3 factors, and
we eliminated 10 items because of their low correlations and loadings on the
corresponding subfactors and factors.

Psychometric analysis of the DMQ, version B

Reliability and correlations
The internal consistency of each of the items, subfactors, factors and the total
questionnaire was calculated by means of the Cronbach alpha coefficient of the
DMQ, version B. Item 10 (trust my own personal experience) had the highest internal
consistency with an alpha coefficient of .79. In contrast, Item 29 (define the desired
goals) presented a lower internal consistency of .42. The rest of the items had internal
consistency indexes somewhere between these values, with very similar values. The
internal consistency of the 10 subfactors was higher than .74, and the internal
consistency of the factors was also higher than .84. These results are a notable
improvement over those from Sample 1.
362 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

The correlations between each item and its corresponding subfactor are presented
in Table 1. These item-subfactor correlations are high and positive, with values
between a minimum of .47 (Item 20) and a maximum of .84 (Item 33). The
correlations between the subfactors, factors, and total questionnaire are also
adequate, with a minimum correlation of .44 between cognition and the factor
context, and a maximum correlation of .89 between various subfactors and factors
(see Table 2). It is noteworthy that all the indexes are between moderate and high,
with statistically significant correlations at the level of p .01, which suggests that the
variables that represent the structure of the instrument share aspects related to
decision making.

Confirmatory factor analysis

In order to empirically confirm the factor structure of the DMQ, version B, we
performed confirmatory factor analysis on the variance-covariance matrix of Sample
2 of the study, starting from an a priori model of the structure of the questionnaire
based on theoretical aspects and the exploratory factor analyses carried out in
Sample 1, version A. For this purpose, we used the structural equation program EQS
(Bentler, 2006) with the maximum likelihood statistical technique because it is robust
enough to correct the violation of the normality principle. The variance of each one
of the common factors was fixed at 1; the variance of the specific factors was
considered free (from EU to EWP); the covariances between the common factors were
considered non-null, and the error terms were considered uncorrelated.
The assessment was carried out with two procedures: an analytical procedure to
contrast the relations postulated in the model between the 10 subfactors (from
uncertainty to work pressure) and the 3 factors of the DMQ, and the analysis of the
degree of global fit of the model, to verify the extent to which the proposed model
reproduces the relations between the correlation matrix and the empirical data.
The results obtained with the analytical procedure show that all the estimated
factor loadings and the covariances between the common factors reached statistically
significant values (Figure 1). We thereby verified that the DMQ has a structure made
up of three factors that are significantly and positively correlated (p B.05) and of 10
subfactors, with regression coefficients between the variables and the error variances
that are statistically significant, except for those corresponding to Esp and Ewp.
According to the recommendations of Byrne (2006) and Tabachnick and Fidell
(2007), in order to determine the fit of the model to the empirical data, we selected
the following indexes: (1) x2 and x2/df, where the former should be nonsignificant
and the latter, with a value lower than 3 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993); (2) comparative
fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI), which should be higher than .95;
and (3) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which should be lower
than .05.
The chi-square test was statistically significant, x2(32) 58.05, p .002, an
expected result for such a large sample. Accordingly, we could, in principle, conclude
that the model was inadequate; nevertheless, the chi-square divided by the degrees of
freedom revealed an adequate fit of the model, as it reached the value of x2/df 1.81.
The CFI and NNFI indexes obtained values of .98 and .97, respectively, thus
exceeding the cut-off point for considering a model reasonably representative of the
observed data. Lastly, the RMSEA, with a value of .02, also confirmed that the
model fitted the data well (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).
Table 1. Factors, subfactors, items, and descriptive statistics of the final version of the DMQ.

ITEM DESCRIPTION: When I make an important decision, for me, it is essential to . . . MDS

Subfactors & Cronbach’s Alpha N8 TASK FACTOR a.84 252 a r LI

1 Uncertainty (U) a.76 12 Overcome doubtful aspects. 54 .49 .72 .61

20 Quickly change my preferences if things go wrong. .49 .47 .72
40 Realise that circumstances may change. .50 .74 .59
41 Become aware if the decision leads to novelties. .46 .62 .67
58 Appraise personal risk involved in the decision. .49 .74 .66
64 Know what the decision involves. .50 .62 .73
2 Time/Money Pressure (T/MP) a.78 25 Evaluate the available time in which to make my decision. 72 .48 .74 .52
26 Organise the actions depending on the time. .46 .72 .65
32 Act quickly and precisely. .48 .62 .64

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

51 Make sure the established times are respected. .51 .73 .67
52 Determine whether costs match the money available. .61 .76 .53
55 Imagine economical options. .48 .65 .74
61 Compare results with time employed. .47 .75 .56
63 Compare results with money spent. .51 .75 .54
3 Information & Goals (I&G) a.88 2 Study the degree of difficulty of the decision. 72 .47 .56 .69
3 Organise the action sequence if the decision is complex. .48 .68 .51
14 Gather as much information as possible about the decision. .47 .78 .61
24 Discover the key information about the decision. .48 .77 .60
28 Realise which information is lacking. .49 .73 .50
29 Define the desired goals. .42 .79 .52
30 Analyse whether the goals interfere with each other. .49 .76 .62
37 Choose the appropriate actions for the decision. .56 .75 .51
4 Consequences of Decision (CD) a.75 47 Foresee the consequences of the decision. 54 .46 .75 .54
49 Overcome the negative consequences. .59 .53 .73
50 Determine whether the consequences have long-term effects. .65 .66 .75

363
53 Accept responsibility for the decision. .56 .75 .53
 364
Table 1 (Continued)

ITEM DESCRIPTION: When I make an important decision, for me, it is essential to . . . MDS

M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

Subfactors & Cronbach’s Alpha N8 SUBJECT FACTOR a.84 216 a r LI

54 Determine whether the consequences will affect other people. .49 .68 .56
62 Determine whether the consequences will affect society. .47 .62 .55
5 Motivation (M) a.78 6 Be motivated to make the decision. 45 .63 .79 .59
9 Be aware of the importance of the decision. .50 .68 .51
31 Keep up my interest during the decision process. .51 .69 .65
44 Be aware of personal achievement involved in the decision. .61 .72 .66
48 Choose the most attractive alternative. .55 .67 .68
6 Self-Regulation (S-R) a.88 8 Know where I’d like to get to. 72 .61 .77 .64
10 Trust my own personal experience. .79 .72 .66
13 Trust my personal capacity to overcome the difficulties. .59 .72 .56
16 Plan the actions to be performed. .64 .73 .61
23 Use the strategies that seem the most efficient. .69 .80 .74
33 Monitor all the phases of the decision process. .73 .84 .67
38 Appraise the achievements gained by the decision. .67 .71 .77
45 Identify the errors committed in the choice. .60 .77 .52
7 Cognition (C) a.79 1 Process the information about the issue to be decided. 54 .55 .75 67
4 Reflect on the need to make the decision. .62 .76 .56
5 Identify the factors that affect the decision. .62 .78 .65
19 Recall previously employed decision strategies. .69 .73 .55
34 Solve the problems that arise. .66 .77 .53
35 Relate the highest number of aspects of the decision. .54 .71 .60
8 Emotion (E) a.77 7 Generate emotions that will help me decide. 45 55 .67 59
17 Act emotionally calm. .64 .70 .53
22 Overcome moments of fear. .58 .62 .51
27 Control my impulsiveness throughout the decision. .67 .74 .50
60 Foresee feelings of guilt .55 .65 .53
Table 1 (Continued)

ITEM DESCRIPTION: When I make an important decision, for me, it is essential to . . . MDS

Subfactors & Cronbach’s Alpha N8 CONTEXT FACTOR a .89 108 a r LI

9 Social Pressure (SP) a .74 11 Avoid any conflict with others. 63 .51 .67 54
15 Make decisions without external pressure. .55 .54 .67
18 Adapt to the pace required by the environment. .56 .66 .66
21 Listen to other people’s opinions about the decision. .50 .58 .64
56 Determine whether the consequences of the decision are socially acceptable. .50 .56 .75
57 Determine whether the decision respects social rules. .54 .63 .72
59 Examine whether socio/political ideas affect the decision. .50 .54 .56
10 Work Pressure (WP) a.74 36 Discover the relation between work rules and personal interests. 45 .53 .64 .51

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

39 Follow work rules. .55 .68 .53
42 Comply with the demands of the law .58 .67 .51
43 Take the goals of the business into account. .50 .55 .56
46 Favour the workers. .49 .53 .62
DMQ a.91 576

a Cronbach’s Alpha; N8Item Number; MDSMaximum Direct Score; rItem-Subfactor Correlation; LILoading Index.

365
 366
M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.
Table 2. Correlations among the subfactors and factors of the DMQ, Version B.

Task Factors Subject Factors Context Factors

Factors Sub-factors U T/MP I&G CD TF M S-R C E SubF SP WP CF

TASK T/MP .68**

I&G .84** .55**
CD .67** .53** .71**
TF .89** .56** .76** .79**
SUBJECT M .75** .55** .79** .61** .78**
S-R .79** .68** .89** .74** .89** .77**
C .76** .61** .88** .69** .85** .67** .86**
E .71** .57** .75** .59** .75** .74** .73** .65**
SubF .84** .68** .73** .75** .82** .87** .76** .89** .84**
CONTEXT SP .49** .42** .37** .36** .45** .38** .35** .36** .42** .39**
WP .56** .62** .61** .61** .68** .53** .62** .61** .48** .63** .38**
CF .62** .57** .52** .52** .61** .50** .51** .44** .51** .54** .74** .68**
DMQ .89** .80** .74** .79** .78** .82** .72** .86** .80** .86** .57** .72** .72**
Note. UUncertainty; T/MP Time/Money Pressure; I&G Information & Goals; CDConsequences of Decision; TFTask Factor; MMotivation; S-R 
Self-regulation; C Cognition; EEmotion; SubFSubject Factor; SPSocial Pressure; WPWork Pressure; CF Context Factor.
**The correlation is significant at the level of .01.
 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 367

.48*
Uncertainty EU
.88*
.43*
.90* Time/Money ET/M
Task .87* .49*
Consequences of ECD
.84* decision

.54*
Information & Goals EI&G
.96*
.45*
Motivation EM
.89*
.39*
.99* .92* Self-regulation ES-R
Subject .83*
.56*
Cognition EC
.68*
.74*
Emotion EE
.99*

.61 (ns)
.79* Social pressure ESP
Context .88*
.48 (ns)
Work pressure EWP

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ).

Note. ns nonsignificant effect, *p B.05.

Likewise, we calculated other practical indexes provided by the EQS, such as the
normed fit index (NFI .95), the incremental fit index (IFI .98), and McDonald’s
fit index (MFI .97), which also indicate the goodness of fit of the model, as they
exceeded the criterion of 0.90 recommended by Bentler (2006).
To sum up, using all these indexes conjointly, we can conclude that the model is a
reasonable approximation to the observed variance-covariance matrix and that, as a
result, it is a useful explanation of the data.
The end result of this process of improving the DMQ was the final version of the
questionnaire presented in Table 1, with 10 subfactors, 3 factors, and 64 items. The
table shows the subfactors and their corresponding reliability index, item number
(N8), item description, maximum direct score of each subfactor (MDS), reliability
index of the item (a), correlations of the item with its subfactor (r), and the loading
index (LI). The statistical analyses of the variables age and sex were performed with
the questionnaire presented in Table 1.

Group comparisons
The DMQ was also examined to determine the possibility of differentiating
individuals in their decisions according the variables age (youths, adults, and seniors)
and sex. For this purpose, we carried out a multivariable analysis of variance of these
two variables. Regarding age, the results of the MANOVA for the series of variables
revealed statistically significant differences between the three age groups [Wilks’
Lambda: F(20, 820) 1.91, p .009, h2 .05], and the results of the ANOVAs also
368 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

revealed statistically significant differences between youths, adults, and seniors in all
the subfactors (see Table 3). The post hoc tests showed that: (1) the youths assigned
the same importance to uncertainty as did the adults, and to information and goals
as did the seniors. In comparison to adults and seniors, the youths assigned less
importance to time pressure and money, as well as to the consequences of the
decision, motivation, and self-regulation of the process, information processing and
work pressure, and more importance to emotions and social pressure; (2) the adults
considered time pressure and money, control over the process, and work pressure to
be important; (3) the seniors assigned more importance to uncertainty and, like the
adults, to the consequences of the decision, motivation, information processing,
emotions and social pressure.
Regarding the variable sex, the results of the MANOVA [Wilks’ Lambda: F(10,
410) 1.98, p .007, h2 .05] revealed statistically significant differences, and the
results of the ANOVAs also revealed sex differences among all the subfactors, except
for cognition. Women attributed more importance to uncertainty, time pressure,
money, consequences of the decision, self-regulation of the decision process,
emotions, social pressure, and work pressure. In contrast, men only scored higher
than women in information, goals, and motivation. The results of the age-sex
interactions were only statistically significant in the variables uncertainty, F(2, 425) 
3.22, p .007, h2 .05, and work pressure, F(2, 425) 3.75, p.006, h2 .05, which
means that the importance that people attributed to these subfactors depended both
on age and sex.

General discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the DMQ is useful to assess the
importance that individuals allocate to the variables that affect their decisions. The
results show that the reliability of the scales and of the total questionnaire was high
and that the instrument has a structure of 10 subfactors and 3 factors; that is, the
DMQ measures what it is supposed to measure with some degree of precision.
Content validity is guaranteed to some extent because the items were extracted
from a specialised bibliography about decision-making processes and because, once
defined, experts reviewed the items in detail. Therefore, the content of each item
matches its respective subfactor, the second-order factor to which it belongs, and the
total questionnaire. Thus, the items correspond to the aspects about which
individuals are most concerned when making a decision (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1996; Zsambok & Klein, 1997).
The exploratory factor analyses revealed a coherent structure of the questionnaire
and corroborated the results of other authors. Hereafter, and in the order of
incidence in the questionnaire structure, we will comment upon each of the 10
primary factors. The Uncertainty factor refers to individuals’ concerns about doubt,
risk, and the changes caused by the decision (Cohen, Freeman, & Wolf, 1996). Time/
Money Pressure determines how individuals organise their activities and it
predisposes them to compare the results of the decision with the time and money
spent (Svenson & Maule, 1993). Information and Goals show the importance of
having adequate data available and of defining specific goals to appraise task
difficulty (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2002). The Consequences factor assigns personal
responsibility for the effects of the decision. Motivation launches the decision-
making process and maintains interest during the development of its successive
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, ANOVA and Eta by age and sex and summary of the post hoc tests by age groups of the DMQ.

Age Sex

Youths (n 173) Adults (208) Seniors (n 44) Men (n 222) Women (n203)
(1) (2) (3)
ANOVA F
Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Eta (h2) Post hoc M (SD) M (SD) ANOVA F Eta (h2)

Uncertainty 34.93 (8.24) 35.50 (7.66) 39.54 (5.56) 5.01** .02 1 2 B3 34.89 (8.55) 36.74 (6.48) 6.25* .06
Time/Money 43.60 (11.98) 52.78 (11.81) 47.95 (8.66) 7.93*** .04 1 B2 3 46.24 (12.95) 48.96 (10.24) 5.71* .05
pressure
Information/Goals 50.27 (12.38) 56.46 (10.81) 52.91 (7.00) 3.69* .02 1 3 B2 53.89 (12.00) 51.77 (9.46) 4.01* .04
Consequences of 36.22 (9.56) 41.05 (9.19) 42.59 (5.42) 4.48* .01 1 B2 3 37.55 (10.38) 41.79 (7.18) 5.90* .05
decision

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

TASK FACTOR 164.02 (37.60) 187.24 (34.52) 180.54 (19.40) 5.43** .03 1 B2 3 171.57 (38.43) 179.26 (28.92) 5.70* .05
Motivation 32.22 (7.47) 36.94 (6.85) 35.87 (5.32) 1.89* .01 1 B2 3 34.14 (7.57) 32.48 (5.80) 12.66*** .13
Self-regulation 50.47 (12.43) 58.90 (6.85) 54.86 (7.04) 4.04* .02 1 B2 3 53.65 (12.03) 55.82 (9.46) 4.20* .04
Cognition 37.47 (9.59) 41.77 (8.19) 40.42 (5.98) 4.18* .02 1 B2 3 38.88 (9.24) 39.77 (7.19) 1.21 .02
Emotion 35.74 (7.22) 31.44 (6.97) 31.75 (3.73) 3.46* .02 1 2 3 30.98 (7.54) 32.70 (5.86) 6.82** .07
SUBJECT 155.90 (33.33) 169.05 (29.62) 162.90 (16.41) 3.76* .02 1 B2 3 157.64 (32.98) 160.76 (24.90) 6.22* .06
FACTOR
Social pressure 42.97 (8.43) 37.22 (8.79) 38.36 (9.95) 4.65* .01 1 2 3 35.98 (9.30) 39.09 (8.10) 13.38*** .15
Work pressure 23.75 (6.59) 29.23 (6.24) 24.23 (6.05) 6.78** .03 1 B2 3 25.45 (6.47) 26.43 (6.19) 5.12* .05

CONTEXT 66.72 (13.74) 66.45 (13.66) 62.59 (15.15) 3.77* .02 1 2 3 61.43 (14.45) 64.13 (12.94) 4.23* .04
FACTOR
*significant at pB.05 level; **significant at pB.01 level; ***significant at p B.001 level.

369
370 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

phases (Bandura, 1997). Self-regulation helps one to plan, monitor, and evaluate the
results (Dreyfus, 1997; Miller & Byrnes, 2001). Cognition helps individuals to process
information, reason about the steps to be taken, and resolve the difficulties that may
emerge during the decision-making process. Emotions create an appropriate mood in
order to make the decision (Mellers, Schwartz, & Ritov, 1999). Social Pressure
helps one to consider the impact of the environment or of other persons when making
a decision (Flannery, Williams, & Vazsonyi, 1999), and, lastly, if one depends on a
paid occupation, it is crucial to take Work Pressure into account when making
decisions.
The second-order factors
task, subject, and context
reveal a related structure.
As expected, there is a moderate connection among the three factors, as the
components are essential in decisions that are carried out in a natural environment.
This corroborates the works of Cannon-Bowers et al. (1996) and of Payne, Bettman,
and Johnson (1993).
Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis corroborated in the DMQ the structure
of 3 factors and 10 subfactors that was extracted from the exploratory factor
analysis. This analysis also indicated the adequate fit of the proposed theoretical
model to the empirical data obtained in the present study.
The variable age affects the importance that can be allocated to the different
factors involved in decision making (Devolder, Brigham, & Pressley, 1990; Ganzel,
1999). In this work, we observed that as individuals become older, most of them show
more interest in the aspects that intervene in decisions. Youths often make decisions
under the influence of their emotions and of social aspects, unlike adults and seniors,
who appear to be more psychologically serene and not under so much pressure from
the environment. The adults scored higher than the other two groups in their concern
about time and money, verification of the information and setting goals, self-
regulation of the decision stages, and perception of work pressure.
A relevant age-related characteristic that appears in this study is the absence of
differences between adults and seniors in cognition. This result somehow contradicts
the generalised opinion that, with increasing age, the working memory and the
capacity to process information decline. The results of our study may have been
influenced by the fact that the responses were not associated with any specific
domain, so we could not observe whether retired people need more time and help to
make a specific decision.
We did, however, observe that retired people make decisions with more
uncertainty, doubts or fear of making mistakes than the youths and adults. This
may be due to the fact that they feel somewhat insecure, an aspect already observed
in other studies (Riggle & Johnson, 1996). Similarly, there is some evidence that while
adults take the consequences of the decision into account, they are also more
motivated by the challenge involved in the decision, and they think about the
decision without letting themselves be excessively influenced by their emotions
(Sniezek, Paese, & Switzer, 1990).
The sex differences obtained reinforce some previous works. In comparison to
men, women are more concerned about the security involved in the decision, they
value the available time and money more (Wood, 1990), they think more about the
possible consequences, either for themselves or for other people affected (Gill et al.,
1987), they feel emotions more strongly (Ganzel, 1999), and they are more aware of
 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 371

pressure from the environment and from close persons (Crow, Fok, Hartman, &
Payne, 1991). Compared to women, men process, seek, and analyse information
more, they define their goals more precisely, and they are more motivated by work
demands, to which they also allocate more importance.
We hope that the DMQ can be administered in educational and work areas,
among others. In the educational area: (a) to orient adolescents in the vocational
decision process, that is, to examine the factors that most affect their choices, which
may be related to the nature of the decision, their own cognitive and affective
abilities, and the influence of environment, family, and friends; and (b) to study the
variables that may be associated with vocational indecision. When counsellors are
confronted with indecisive students who need to make a career choice, just providing
information may not be enough; they may also have to analyse the factors
contemplated by the DMQ and determine the ones in which the students have the
most difficulty. Indeed, career indecision is one of the central issues in vocational
psychology (Amir & Gati, 2006). In the work area: (a) to train decision makers, that
is, as tools to learn decision making; (b) to discover the factors that most affect the
decisions of certain institutions or businesses; and (c) to discover to which factors
professionals in posts of responsibility allocate importance and about which they are
therefore constantly making decisions.
Concluding, in view of the empirical evidence analysed to date, the DMQ has
shown itself to be a relatively reliable and valid instrument to evaluate the factors
related to decision making. However, new data are required so that its technical
properties can be completed using a broader criterion. For example, the predictive
validity of the questionnaire should be investigated using real decisions, as well as the
concurrent and divergent validity, comparing it with other questionnaires that measure
similar or different aspects. The questionnaire also has some limitations derived from
the samples, such as the size, selection system, origin, etc. Therefore, future
development of the investigation in this field should try to replicate the results found
in this study with samples from other settings. Likewise, it would be interesting to
analyse in depth the age and sex differences in decision making in specific domains.

Notes on contributors
Marı́a Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga is Professor of Cognitive Psychology from 1990 in the
Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain. She has published numerous journal articles
of impact and her investigations focus mainly on the application of Cognitive Psychology to
the improvement of thinking skills.

Marı́a Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedano is Professor of Educational Psychology in the Public
University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain. She has worked in several projects on creativity and
problem-solving.

Marı́a Soria Oliver is a Doctor in Psychology for the Public University of Navarre and
specialist in decision making. She has participated in several research projects about human
resources.

Antonio Humberto Closas is Professor of Mathematics and Statistic in the Nordeste

University of Argentina. He is a specialist in structural equations analysis from the EQS
programme.
372 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.

References
Amir, T., & Gati, I. (2006). Facets of career decision-making difficulties. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 34(4), 483
503.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221
235.
Bentler, P.M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Byrne, B.M. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.
Byrnes, J.P. (1998). The nature and development of decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., & Salas, E. (2002). Individual and team decision making under stress:
Theoretical underpinnings. In J.A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions
under stress (pp. 17
38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., & Pruitt, J.S. (1996). Establishing the boundaries of a
paradigm for decision-making research. Human Factors, 38(2), 193
205.
Chen, Y., & Sun, Y. (2003). Age differences in financial decision-making: Using simple
heuristics. Educational Gerontology, 29(7), 627
635.
Cohen, M.S. (1995). The bottom line: Naturalistic decision aiding. In G.A. Klein, J. Orasanu,
R. Calderwood, & C.E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods
(pp. 265
269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cohen, M.S., Freeman, J.K., & Wolf, S. (1996). Meta-recognition in time-stressed decision
making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors, 38(2), 206
219.
Conoley, J.C., & Impara, J.C. (1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE:
The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Crow, S.M., Fok, L.Y., Hartman, S.J., & Payne, D.M. (1991). Gender and values: What is the
impact on decision making? Sex Roles, 25(3/4), 255
268.
Devolder, P.A., Brigham, M.C., & Pressley, M. (1990). Memory performance awareness in
younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 291
303.
Dreyfus, H.L. (1997). Intuitive, deliberative, and calculative models of expert performance. In
C.E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 17
28). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dror, I.E., Katona, M., & Mungur, K. (1998). Age differences in decision making: To take a
risk or not? Gerontology, 44(2), 67
71.
Finucane, M.L., Kaiser, P., Slovic, P., & Schmidt, E.S. (2005). Task complexity and older
adults’ decision-making competence. Psychology and Aging, 20(1), 71
84.
Flannery, D.J., Williams, L.L., & Vazsonyi, A.T. (1999). Who are they with and what are they
doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents’ after-school time.
American Journal of Ortopsychiatry, 69(2), 247
253.
Ganzel, A.K. (1999). Adolescent decision making: The influence of mood, age, and gender on
the consideration of information. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(3), 289
318.
Gardner, W., Scherer, D., & Tester, M. (1989). Asserting scientific authority: Cognitive
development and adolescent legal rights. American Psychologist, 44, 895
902.
Gill, S., Stockard, J., Johnson, M., & Williams, S. (1987). Measuring gender differences: The
expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales. Sex Roles, 17, 375
400.
Hatala, R., & Case, S.M. (2000). Examining the influence of gender on medical students’
decision making. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based Medicine, 9(6), 617
623.
Hawkins, K., & Power, Ch.B. (1999). Gender differences in questions during small decision
making group decisions. Small Group Research, 30(2), 235
256.
Herr, E.L., & Cramer, S.H. (1996). Career guidance and counseling through the life span:
Systematic approaches (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Hillsdale: Scientific Software International.
Klein, G.A. (1997a). An overview of applications. In C.E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.),
Naturalistic decision making (pp. 49
60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klein, G.A. (1997b). Developing expertise in decision making. Thinking and Reasoning, 3(4),
337
352.
 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 373

Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C.E. (1993). Decision making in action:
Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mather, M., Knight, M., & McCaffrey, M. (2005). The allure of the alignable: Younger and
older adults’ false memories of choice features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
134(1), 38
51.
Mellers, B.A., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 128(3), 332
345.
Miller, D.C., & Byrnes, J.P. (2001). To achieve or not to achieve: A self-regulation perspective
on adolescents’ academic decision making. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 677

685.
Moshman, D. (1993). Adolescent reasoning and adolescent rights. Human Development, 36,
27
40.
Orasanu, J., & Connolly, T. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. In G. Klein, J.
Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C.E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and
methods (pp. 3
20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2005). To be or not to be. . .indecisive: Gender differences, correlations
with obsessive-compulsive complaints, and behavioral manifestation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1175
1181.
Riggle, E.D.B., & Johnson, M.M.S. (1996). Age difference in political decision making:
Strategies for evaluating political candidates. Political Behavior, 18(1), 99
118.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of
Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23
74.
Sniezek, J.A., Paese, P.W., & Switzer, F.S. (1990). The effect of choosing on confidence in
choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 264
282.
Svenson, O., & Maule, A.J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision
making. New York: Plenum Press.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th edn.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Wood, J.T. (1990). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Zsambok, C.E. (1997). Naturalistic decision making: Where are we now? In C.E. Zsambok &
G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 3
16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zsambok, C.E., & Klein, G. (1997). Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
View publication stats