How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check.
- Radziej K a Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- Loechner J b Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität , Munich , Germany.
- Engerer C c TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- Niglio de Figueiredo M e Center for Mental Health, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine , University of Freiburg , Freiburg , Germany.
- Freund J e Center for Mental Health, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine , University of Freiburg , Freiburg , Germany.
- Sattel H a Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- Bachmann C g Institute of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine , University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
- Berberat PO c TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- Dinkel A a Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- Wuensch A c TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
- 2017-11-17
Published in:
- Medical education online. - 2017
Communication skills training
OSCE
assessment tool
medical education
rating scale
Behavior
Communication
Education, Medical, Undergraduate
Educational Measurement
Emotions
Female
Humans
Male
Observer Variation
Perception
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult
English
BACKGROUND
Good communication is a core competency for all physicians. Thus, medical students require adequate preparation in communication skills. For research purposes, as well as for evaluation in teaching, there is a clear need for reliable assessment tools. We analyzed the shortcomings of existing instruments and saw a need for a new rating scale. The aim of this publication is to describe the development process for, and evaluation of, a new rating scale.
METHODS
First, we developed the rating scale in 10 steps. Then, two raters evaluated the newly developed rating scale by rating 135 videotaped consultations of medical students with standardized patients. Additionally, standardized patients evaluated students' performance, which was used as an outside criterion to validate ratings.
RESULTS
Our rating scale comprises six domains with 13 specific items evaluated on a five-point Likert scale: initiating conversation, patient's perception, structure of conversation, patient's emotions, end of conversation, and general communication skills. Item-total correlation coefficients between the checklist items ranged from 0.15 to 0.78. Subscale consistency was calculated for domains comprised of more than one item and Cronbach's α ≥ 0.77, indicating acceptable consistency. Standardized patients' global evaluation correlated moderately with overall expert ratings (Spearman's ρ = .40, p < .001).
CONCLUSION
Our rating scale is a reliable and applicable assessment tool. The rating scale focuses on the evaluation of general communication skills and can be applied in research as well as in evaluations, such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE).
ABBREVIATIONS
CST: Communication skills training; ICC: Intra-class correlation coefficient; OSCE: Objective structured clinical examination; SP: Standardized patients; SD: Standard deviation; M: Mean.
Good communication is a core competency for all physicians. Thus, medical students require adequate preparation in communication skills. For research purposes, as well as for evaluation in teaching, there is a clear need for reliable assessment tools. We analyzed the shortcomings of existing instruments and saw a need for a new rating scale. The aim of this publication is to describe the development process for, and evaluation of, a new rating scale.
METHODS
First, we developed the rating scale in 10 steps. Then, two raters evaluated the newly developed rating scale by rating 135 videotaped consultations of medical students with standardized patients. Additionally, standardized patients evaluated students' performance, which was used as an outside criterion to validate ratings.
RESULTS
Our rating scale comprises six domains with 13 specific items evaluated on a five-point Likert scale: initiating conversation, patient's perception, structure of conversation, patient's emotions, end of conversation, and general communication skills. Item-total correlation coefficients between the checklist items ranged from 0.15 to 0.78. Subscale consistency was calculated for domains comprised of more than one item and Cronbach's α ≥ 0.77, indicating acceptable consistency. Standardized patients' global evaluation correlated moderately with overall expert ratings (Spearman's ρ = .40, p < .001).
CONCLUSION
Our rating scale is a reliable and applicable assessment tool. The rating scale focuses on the evaluation of general communication skills and can be applied in research as well as in evaluations, such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE).
ABBREVIATIONS
CST: Communication skills training; ICC: Intra-class correlation coefficient; OSCE: Objective structured clinical examination; SP: Standardized patients; SD: Standard deviation; M: Mean.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- gold
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1080/10872981.2017.1392823
- PMID 29141516
- Persistent URL
- https://susi.usi.ch/global/documents/28634
Statistics
Document views: 24
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0