| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT) |
| First Description |
Weber EU, Blais¡ AR, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Making. 2002;15:263-290. |
| Year | 2002 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Risk perception |
| Population/Disease | Generic |
| Originally developed for | --- |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | Italian, Chinese, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Polish, German, Dutch, Japanese |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Weber EU, Blais¡ AR, Betz NE. |
| Title | A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. |
| Journal | J Behav Decis Making |
| Year | 2002 |
| Vol | 15 |
| Num | --- |
| Pages | 263-290 |
| Country | USA |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30107438/ |
| Brief Description |
Does the DOSPERT scale predict risk-taking behaviour during travel? A study using smartphones |
| Link | https://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06005.pdf |
| Brief Description |
A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24307919/ |
| Brief Description |
Predicting (un)healthy behavior: A comparison of risk-taking propensity measures |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024034/ |
| Brief Description |
Testing Risk-Taking Behavior in Chinese Undergraduate Students |
| Link | https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/researcharchive/articles/1334 |
| Brief Description |
Beyond a Trait View of Risk-Taking: A Domain-Specific Scale Measuring Risk Perceptions, Expected Benefits, and Perceived-Risk Attitude in German-Speaking Populations |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28126068/ |
| Brief Description |
Spanish validation of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT-30) Scale |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Elke U Weber |
| euw2@columbia.edu | |
| Address | --- |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links |
https://sites.google.com/decisionsciences.columbia.edu/dospert/home |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Scale |
| Brief Description |
DOSPERT is a psychometric scale that assesses risk taking in five content domains: financial decisions (separately for investing versus gambling), health/safety, recreational, ethical, and social decisions. There are two versions. The first one was developed in 2002 with 40 items an a shorter version was developed in 2006 with 30 items. |
| Number of Items | 40 |
| Range | --- |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes 1-5 |
| Developed for | Both |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Online/Mail based, Interviewer/assessor |
| Recommendations to score |
Respondents rate the likelihood that they would engage in domain-specific risky activities. For the Risk-Behavior scale, respondents evaluated their like-lihood of engaging in these risk behaviors (i.e. ‘ . . . indicate your likelihood of engaging in each activity’) ona five-point rating scale ranging from 1 (‘Extremely unlikely’) to 5 (‘Extremely likely’). For the Risk-Perception scale, participants rated their perception of the risk entailed by each risky behavior (i.e.‘ . . . indicate your gut level assessment of how risky each situation is’) on a five-point rating scale rangingfrom 1 (‘Not at all risky’) to 5 (‘Extremely risky’). Items were not presented by subscales but were randomlyinterspersed. The random ordering of items was different for the two scales. |
| Score Interpretation | Higher scores indicate greater risk taking in the domain of the subscale |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | - minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | - minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | Easy to use |
| Limitations | --- |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |