ArticleBMC medical education2024
A 360-degree evaluation of the professionalism and communication skills of technologists working in the radiology department of a public sector tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gender and Educational Pathway Differences in 360-Degree Evaluations During Postgraduate Year Training in Taiwan.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiologic technologists (RTs) are at the forefront of radiology departments and require optimal skills to demonstrate professionalism and effective provider-patient communication. Hence, the objective of this study was to determine the reliability of 360-degree evaluation as a feedback tool to improve competencies in this crucial workforce.
methodsA planned 360-degree evaluation was conducted using a 10-item tool to evaluate communication skills and professionalism among radiological technologists working at Dow University Hospital, Karachi. In total, 311 evaluations of fifteen radiological technologists were conducted while performing various diagnostic radiology procedures at the radiology department of Dow University Hospital. The data were analysed using SPSS version 26 to compute the evaluation scores and the reliability of 360-degree evaluation.
resultsA total of 311 RT-patient interactions were recorded over 48 days, with scores from all three raters. The evaluation tool was found to have good internal consistency for patients, faculty, and RT, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.89, 087, and 0.74, respectively. The study found an intraclass correlation of 0.66 (95% CI; 0.58-0.72), showing moderate reliability of the 360-degree evaluation across different raters.
conclusionWe conclude that 360-degree evaluation is a valid and reliable tool for determining the professionalism and communication skills of radiologic technologists and should be incorporated into training programs for formative and summative assessments. However, large-scale multicenter studies are crucial for generalizing these findings and incorporating 360 evaluations in radiological technologist training programs for formative and summative assessments.
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.