ArticlePEC innovation2026
Measuring empathy in OSCEs: A comparison of student, standardized patient, and observer rating tools.
Article in PEC innovation, 2026. 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.
- Communicative Rationality and Clinical Decision-Making: A Habermasian Perspective on the Doctor-Patient Relationship.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Changes in Self-Reported Empathy After a Basic Medical Communication Course Among Premedical Students: Single-Group Longitudinal Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: During objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), perceived empathy can be rated by medical students, simulated patients (SPs) or external observers. This study aimed to examine how different ratings of medical students' perceived empathy correlate with each other, as well as with measures of behavioral empathy using a standardized coding system. Methods: Voluntary medical students who participated to a formative OSCE self-rated their empathy using a global empathy score. SPs and an external observer rated students' perceived empathy using the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE-Patient; JSPPE-Observer) and global scores. The Verona Coding System (VR-CoDES) captured patients' emotions and students' responses (verbal empathy). Non-verbal behavior and five sub-behaviors were assessed via an ordinal scale (1-5). Associations were calculated using correlation analyses. Results: 56 medical students participated. There was no significant association between students' self-perceived empathy and other measures of perceived empathy. Global SPs' and observer's measures of perceived empathy as well as JSPPPE scales correlated with verbal empathy (VR-CoDES) (global ρ =0.27 Conclusion: SPs and observers' ratings of perceived empathy using global scores as well as measurement of non-verbal behavior are valid ways to assess medical students' behavioral empathy. Innovation: Standardized coding systems are useful to assess which measures of medical students' perceived empathy used in OSCEs best correlate with behavioral empathy.
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.