ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2017
The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Qualitative Study on Dentists' Communication Approaches in Managing Fluoride-Hesitant Caregivers.JDR clinical and translational research · 2024Article
- Nurses' Perspectives on Health Education and Health Literacy of Older Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care providers are continually seeking to improve patient communication to improve patient outcomes. The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a set of recommended communication practices and an instrument to evaluate health care providers' use of and perceived effectiveness of these techniques.
objectiveThe purpose of the study was to assess factor structure of the AMA Communication Techniques Survey using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate reliability of the instrument among nurses and allied health professionals who provide diabetes education.
methodsA national convenience sample of 522 diabetes educators completed the survey; this sample was split into two subsamples-the EFA ( KEY
resultsEFA with varimax rotation revealed two internally consistent subscales labeled basic and advanced communication techniques. CFA determined that basic and advanced technique subscales were a good fit for the factors. Basic techniques included items such as speaking slowly and using simple words. Advanced techniques included the Teach-Back method, underlining words in printed materials, and presenting 2 to 3 concepts at a time. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale was .81 and .70 (basic subscale) and .74 (advanced subscale), indicating good reliability.
conclusionsThe AMA Communication Techniques Survey appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to examine communication practices of diabetes educators. Additionally, EFA confirms previously hypothesized basic and advanced subscales. However, the factors included in each scale differ from previous conceptualization. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study established reliability and validity for the American Medical Association Communication Technqiues Survey among diabetes educators. Data support the creation of two separate groups of items: basic and advanced techqniues.
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.