Table of Contents
Abstract
The biopsychosocial (BPS) model represents a paradigm shift in medicine, moving beyond a strictly biomedical focus to incorporate the psychological and social dimensions of human health. For family physicians, who often serve as the first point of contact in the healthcare system, integrating this comprehensive perspective is crucial for accurately diagnosing and treating complex, multifaceted patient presentations. Despite the theoretical widespread acceptance of the BPS model, there has historically been a lack of standardized instruments to quantify how effectively practitioners implement this approach in their daily clinical work.
To address this measurement gap, researchers developed and validated a novel psychometric instrument specifically designed for family medicine practitioners. Through a rigorous multi-stage process involving expert consensus and empirical testing, the authors created a robust tool that captures the multidimensional nature of patient-centered care. This scale not only provides a mechanism for self-reflection among clinicians but also offers researchers a standardized metric to evaluate the relationship between a physician's BPS orientation and patient health outcomes.
📊 Psychometric Scorecard
35
Multidimensional
0.91
📍 Slovenia
Authors
Purpose
The primary objective behind this instrument is to operationalize a theoretical clinical framework into a measurable psychological construct. While medical education heavily emphasizes the importance of treating the 'whole patient,' evaluating whether physicians actually internalize and apply these principles has remained methodologically challenging. By providing a validated self-report measure, this tool bridges the gap between abstract clinical guidelines and observable practitioner attitudes.
Furthermore, the scale serves as a critical asset for healthcare quality improvement initiatives. It allows administrators and educators to identify training needs, track the development of holistic care competencies in medical residents, and investigate how systemic factors—such as clinic resources or time constraints—might facilitate or hinder a physician's ability to practice biopsychosocially.
Construct
The psychological construct captured by this scale reflects a clinician's orientation toward comprehensive, patient-centered care. Rather than treating disease as an isolated biological malfunction, the BPS approach conceptualizes illness as a complex interplay of organic, psychological, and environmental variables. The instrument deconstructs this broad philosophy into three distinct but interacting facets: the physician's holistic understanding of the patient's social context, their psychological acumen, and their commitment to an egalitarian doctor-patient partnership.
These dimensions align closely with contemporary theories of shared decision-making and relational autonomy in healthcare. The holistic component assesses the integration of a patient's socioeconomic and family background into clinical reasoning. The psychological dimension evaluates the practitioner's readiness to address mental health comorbidities, while the partnership facet measures the degree to which the physician fosters collaborative, individualized care rather than adopting a paternalistic stance.
Validity
The validation process utilized a comprehensive, mixed-methods approach to ensure the instrument accurately captured the intended construct. Initial content and face validity were established through a rigorous Delphi technique, leveraging the expertise of 24 seasoned family medicine practitioners to generate and refine the item pool. This consensus-building phase ensured that the scale's content was highly relevant to the real-world demands of primary care.
Construct validity was further supported by examining the intercorrelations among the scale's dimensions. As anticipated by BPS theory, the social and psychological domains demonstrated a strong positive relationship (r = 0.675), indicating that physicians who attend to social determinants of health are also highly likely to address psychological well-being. The biomedical dimension showed weaker, yet significant, correlations with the other factors (r = 0.175 with social, r = 0.352 with psychological), highlighting that while biological care is foundational, it operates somewhat independently of psychosocial orientations in practice.
Reliability
Psychometric evaluation revealed excellent internal consistency for the finalized 35-item instrument, yielding a robust overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.911. This high value indicates that the items reliably measure a unified underlying construct of biopsychosocial orientation. The individual subscales also demonstrated acceptable to strong internal consistency, with alpha values ranging from 0.771 to 0.849, suggesting that each specific domain is measured with adequate precision.
Beyond internal consistency, the researchers established temporal stability through test-retest reliability analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated at 0.862, demonstrating that a physician's self-reported BPS approach remains relatively stable over time rather than fluctuating as a transient state. Additionally, split-half reliability testing yielded a very high Spearman-Brown coefficient of 0.931, further confirming the structural dependability of the questionnaire.
Factor Analysis
To uncover the underlying latent structure of the item pool, the researchers employed exploratory factor analysis. The extraction and rotation procedures revealed a three-factor solution that accounted for approximately 39.5% of the total variance. While this variance explained is somewhat modest, it is acceptable for a newly developed instrument measuring a broad, multifaceted clinical philosophy.
The factor structure cleanly mapped onto the theoretical underpinnings of the BPS model. The first and largest factor, explaining 24.1% of the variance, captured the holistic or social approach, grouping 14 items related to the patient's broader life context. The second factor isolated the psychological part of the physician's role with 13 items, while the third factor aggregated 12 items reflecting the partnership and collaborative communication between doctor and patient. Following the elimination of four poorly performing items, the final 35-item structure proved to be the most psychometrically sound.
Subscales
| Subscale | Items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Holistic or social approach | Measures the extent to which the physician considers the patient's social background, family situation, and job context when applying clinical knowledge. | |
| Psychological part of family medical doctor's work | Assesses the physician's awareness of and skills in addressing the psychological context of an individual's health and mental illness. | |
| Partnership between patient and doctor | Evaluates the physician's commitment to an individual approach, patient-centered communication, and cooperative shared decision-making. |
Instrument
| Test Type | Self-report questionnaire |
| Format | 35 items, Likert-type response scale |
| Scoring | Average scores are calculated; includes reverse-scored items. Items are arranged in an even-odd format. |
| Language | Slovenian |
| Population | Healthcare professionals |
| Age Group | Adults |
| Administration | Self-administered |
Scoring & Interpretation Guidelines
| Scoring Instructions | Two negatively stated items require reverse scoring. The final scale items are presented in an alternating even-odd arrangement. |
| Normative Reference Values | Average item responses ranged from 3.01 to 4.79 across the sample. |
Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians Items
Items are currently not available
The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.
Sample
The scale was developed and validated across multiple samples in Slovenia. The initial Delphi study included 24 family medicine experts (aged 33-62, mostly female, urban settings). Comprehensibility and initial validation utilized two groups of family medicine trainees (n=31 and n=32). The final cross-sectional validation sample consisted of 164 practicing family physicians out of 255 invited, with a majority being female.
Permissions & Test Year
The scale is provided in the online supplemental material of the original open-access publication.
Test Year: 2022
Cite This Paper
Irena Makivić, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš (2022). Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians. family medicine and community health. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2021-001407
References
24 references
- Borrell-Carrio, F. (2004). The Biopsychosocial Model 25 Years Later: Principles, Practice, and Scientific Inquiry. The Annals of family medicine, 2(6), 576-582. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.245
- Allen J , Gay B , Crebolder H , et al . The European definition of general practice/family medicine, 2022. Available: https://tinyurl.com/4tjd8pcc
- van Weel (2008). Mental health and primary care: family medicine has a role. Ment Health Fam Med, 5 3.
- Magnan S . Social determinants of health 101 for health care: five plus five, 2017. Available: https://nam.edu/social-determinants-of-health-101-for-health-care-five-plus-five/ 🔗 https://doi.org/10.31478/201710c
- Institute of Medicine . Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001.
- Funk (2008). Integrating mental health into primary healthcare. Ment Health Fam Med, 5 5.
- Ivbijaro (2008). Mental health in family medicine: a new opportunity. Ment Health Fam Med, 5 1.
- Saraiva (2020). Bridging the mental health treatment gap: effects of a collaborative care intervention (matrix support) in the detection and treatment of mental disorders in a Brazilian City. Fam Med Community Health, 8
- Tripathi (2019). Biopsychosocial Model in contemporary psychiatry: current validity and future prospects. Indian J Psychol Med, 41 582. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_314_19
- Tanaka, Y., Kanazawa, M., Fukudo, S., Drossman, D. (2011). Biopsychosocial Model of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 17(2), 131-139. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm.2011.17.2.131
- Makivić (2016). The role of the psychosocial dimension in the improvement of quality of care: a systematic review. Zdr Varst, 55 86.
- Babchuk, W. (2019). Fundamentals of qualitative analysis in family medicine. family medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000040. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000040
- García de Yébenes Prous (2009). [Validation of questionnaires]. Reumatol Clin, 5 171. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reuma.2008.09.007
- Rezaei, F., Maracy, M., Yarmohammadian, M., Ardalan, A., Keyvanara, M. (2019). Preparedness of community-based organisations in biohazard: reliability and validity of an assessment tool. family medicine and Community Health, 7(3), e000124. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2019-000124
- Keeney S , Hasson F , McKenna H . The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Wiley-Blackwell. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444392029
- Tavakol, M., Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
- DeVellis RF . scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003.
- Schäfer, W., Boerma, W., Kringos, D., De Maeseneer, J., Greß, S., Heinemann, S., … et al. (2011). QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care. BMC Family Practice, 12(1) 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-115
- Rasmussen (2018). How general practitioners understand and handle medically unexplained symptoms: a focus group study. BMC Fam Pract, 19 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0745-2
- Street, R., Krupat, E., Bell, R., Kravitz, R., Haidet, P. (2003). Beliefs about control in the physician-patient relationship. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(8), 609-616. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20749.x
- Nicassio, P., Kay, M., Custodio, M., Irwin, M., Olmstead, R., Weisman, M. (2011). An evaluation of a biopsychosocial framework for health-related quality of life and disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71(2), 79-85. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.01.008
- Sanders, T., Foster, N., Bishop, A., Ong, B. (2013). Biopsychosocial care and the physiotherapy encounter: physiotherapists’ accounts of back pain consultations. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14(1) 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-65
- Stange, K. (2010). Ways of Knowing, Learning, and Developing. The Annals of family medicine, 8(1), 4-10. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1082
- Makivić I . Povezanost biopsihosocialnega pristopa K zdravljenju S kakovostjo oskrbe bolnikov: doktorska disertacija, 2017. Available: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=94273
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/scale-for-measuring-the-biopsychosocial-approach-of-family-physicians/
Mohammed looti. "Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/scale-for-measuring-the-biopsychosocial-approach-of-family-physicians/.
Mohammed looti. "Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/scale-for-measuring-the-biopsychosocial-approach-of-family-physicians/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/scale-for-measuring-the-biopsychosocial-approach-of-family-physicians/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Scale for Measuring the Biopsychosocial Approach of Family Physicians. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.