Assessing Medical Students’ Communication Skills by the Use of Standardized Patients: Emphasizing Standardized Patients’ Quality Assurance
- 599 Downloads
The objective structured examination is one of the most valid, reliable, and effective tools for assessing clinical and communication skills, often by use of standard patients (SPs). SPs can also be assessors of those skills. One of the crucial areas when utilizing SP-based assessment is the quality and consistency assurance of their portrayal of the case and their ability to fill in checklists in an adequate way. The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of SPs’ ability to assess students’ communication skill via a Calgary-Cambridge checklist.
This cross-sectional and correlational study was conducted at the Tehran University of Medical Science. We first analyzed validity; the criterion validity of the SPs’ filling in the checklists was assessed through determining the correlation between the SPs’ completed checklists and the checklists filled in by three physician raters individually and then reproducibility: it was assessed by a test-retest approach inter-rater reliability.
The mean correlation for assessing the validity of SPs’ completed checklists by individual SPs was 0.81. The inter-rater reliability was calculated by kappa coefficient, and the total correlation among the three raters was 0.85. The reliability of the test-retest approach showed no significant differences between the test and re-test results.
The increased number of medical students and different faculties’ responsibilities such as doing educational, research, and health services duties assessing medical student communication skills is a complex issue. The results of our study showed that trained SPs can be used as a valid tool to assess medical students’ communication skills, which is also more cost effective and reduces work load of medical faculties.
KeywordsStandardized patient (SP) Communication skill Assessment Medical student Feedback Quality assurance Validity and reliability of SP
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 3.Stubbe D. Effective patient centered—communication FOCUS. Winter. 2012;x(1):42–4.Google Scholar
- 4.World Health Organization. Doctor-patient interaction and communication. Geneva: WHO; 1993.Google Scholar
- 5.Vu NV, Barrows HS. Use of standardized patients in clinical assessments: recent developments and measurement findings. Educational Researcher 1994;23(3):23–30.Google Scholar
- 8.Wallace P. Coaching standardized patients: for use in the assessment of clinical competence. In: Wallace P, editor. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2006.Google Scholar
- 12.Norman GR et al. Simulated patients. In: Neufeld VR, Norman GR, editors. Assessing clinical competence. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1985.Google Scholar
- 13.Gomez JM, et al. Clinical skills assessment with standardized patients. Med Educ. 1997;31(2):94–8.Google Scholar
- 15.Vu NV. Steward DE, and Marcy M, An assessment of the consistency and accuracy of standardized patients’ simulations. J Med Educ. 1987;62:1002.Google Scholar
- 16.Colliver JA SM, Robbs RS, Lofquist M, Cohen D, Verhulst SJ. The effect of using multiple standardized patients on the intercase reliability of a large scale standardized patient examination administered over an extended testing period. Acad Med. 1998;73(10 suppl):S813.Google Scholar
- 22.Donnon T, Lee M, Cairncross S. Using item analysis to assess objectively the quality of the Calgary-Cambridge OSCE Checklist. CMEJ, 2011;2(1):e16–e22.Google Scholar
- 31.Fincher R-ME, Lewis LA. Simulations used to teach clinical skills. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. Int Handb Res Med Educ. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. p. 499–535.Google Scholar