Trial reportMedical education online2017
How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check.
Trial report in Medical education online, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Specific feedback makes medical students better communicators.BMC medical education · 2019Trial
- Article
- Article
- Education modalities for serious illness communication training: A scoping review on the impact on clinician behavior and patient outcomes.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
- "Patients Are the People Who Teach Me the Most": Exploring the Development of Communication Skills During Internal Medicine Residency.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- Psychometric properties of the Korean version of ComOn coaching for oncology nurses.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2022Article
- Simulation-based training in asthma exacerbation for medical students: effect of prior exposure to simulation training on performance.BMC medical education · 2022Observational
- Barriers and Facilitators to Discussing Goals of Care among Nephrology Trainees: A Qualitative Analysis and Novel Educational Intervention.Journal of palliative medicine · 2020Article
- Standardized Patients or Conventional Lecture for Teaching Communication Skills to Undergraduate Medical Students: A Randomized Controlled Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2020Article
- Development of an empathy and clarity rating scale to measure the effect of medical improv on end-of-first-year OCSE performance: a pilot study.Medical education online · 2019Article
- Assessing Communication Skills in Real Medical Encounters in Oncology: Development and Validation of the ComOn-Coaching Rating Scales.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGood 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.
methodsFirst, 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.
resultsOur 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).
conclusionOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.