ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2024
Reliability of the Gap-Kalamazoo communication skills assessment form in occupational therapy.
Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 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.
- The relationship between physical therapy students' communication skills during a standardized patient examination and professionalism domain performance on a first full-time clinical experience: an exploratory cohort study.Journal of clinical education in physical therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Gap-Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Form (GKCSAF) is widely used in medical education, yet its reliability in real occupational therapy clinical settings remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, as well as random measurement error, of the GKCSAF in occupational therapy. Method: Five independent raters evaluated audio-recordings and transcripts of conversations involving 30 patients treated by 22 assessors (7 therapists and 15 students). Both direct and coded ratings were used. Results: For direct ratings, intra-rater reliability was moderate for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.76), but poor for inter-rater (ICC = 0.31). minimal detectable change (MDC%) was acceptable for the same rater (17.8%) but not for different raters (38.3%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (-0.01 to 0.34) for each domain score. Coded ratings showed moderate intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.69) and poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.22). MDC% was acceptable for the same rater (24.8%) but not for different raters (65.5%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (-0.02 to 0.33) for each domain score. Conclusion: GKCSAF displays acceptable intra-rater but poor inter-rater reliability in occupational therapy clinical scenarios. Multiple raters are advised for enhanced reliability, while coding might not significantly enhance it. It is advisable to use the GKCSAF cautiously in occupational therapy education, ensuring adequate training, and possibly incorporating multiple raters for assessment consistency.
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.