Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2026
Reliability and Validity of Patient Ratings and Clinician Self-Report in the Assessment of Clinician Non-English Language Skills.
Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundClear communication is critical for diagnosis and disease management, especially for patients with a non-English language preference (NELP). Health systems use various strategies to certify clinicians in non-English languages, and patient ratings have been proposed as one assessment method.
objectiveEvaluate the reliability of patient ratings as well as the validity of patient and clinician self-assessments of clinician non-English language skills.
designObservational study leveraging data from the Language Access System Improvement (LASI) study at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).
participantsThe sample included 323 patients with NELP (Cantonese, Mandarin, or Spanish) and 32 academic primary care clinicians. MAIN MEASURES: Patient ratings and clinician self-assessments of clinician non-English language skills (5-category); algorithm-based indicator of clinician bilingual verification status (binary, validating measure). KEY
resultsThe estimated reliability/dependability coefficient (Φ) of a single patient rating equaled 0.29. Averaging six patient ratings yielded acceptable dependability for research (Φ = 0.707). Higher reliability required averaging 10 (Φ = 0.801), 23 (Φ = 0.902), or 48 (Φ = 0.951) patient ratings. Clinician-averaged patient ratings were weakly correlated with bilingual verification status, suggesting low validity (r
conclusionsPatient ratings of clinician non-English language proficiency had low reliability and validity. Clinician self-assessments showed stronger validity and may be sufficient for research use but should be verified with standardized assessments for clinical certification. Patient feedback may still inform communication training and quality improvement.
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.