Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29141516›Full record

Trial reportMedical education online2017

How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check.

K Radziej, J Loechner, C Engerer, M Niglio de Figueiredo, J Freund, H Sattel, C Bachmann, P O Berberat, A Dinkel, A Wuensch

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

K Radzieja Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
J Loechnerb Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität , Munich , Germany.
C Engererc TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
M Niglio de Figueiredoe Center for Mental Health, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine , University of Freiburg , Freiburg , Germany.
J Freunde Center for Mental Health, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine , University of Freiburg , Freiburg , Germany.
H Sattela Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
C Bachmanng Institute of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine , University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
P O Berberatc TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
A Dinkela Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.
A Wuenschc TUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar , Technical University of Munich , Munich , Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationBehaviorEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationPerceptionPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultassessment toolCommunication skills trainingmedical educationOSCErating scale

Identifiers

PMID29141516
PMCPMC7011842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.