| Title |
Validating Measures of Third Year Medical Students’ Use of Interpreters by Standardized Patients and Faculty Observers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-007-0349-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Desiree Lie, John Boker, Sylvia Bereknyei, Susan Ahearn, Charlotte Fesko, Patricia Lenahan |
| Abstract |
Increasing prevalence of limited English proficiency patient encounters demands effective use of interpreters. Validated measures for this skill are needed. We describe the process of creating and validating two new measures for rating student skills for interpreter use. Encounters using standardized patients (SPs) and interpreters within a clinical practice examination (CPX) at one medical school. Students were assessed by SPs using the interpreter impact rating scale (IIRS) and the physician patient interaction (PPI) scale. A subset of 23 encounters was assessed by 4 faculty raters using the faculty observer rating scale (FORS). Internal consistency reliability was assessed by Cronbach's coefficient alpha (alpha). Interrater reliability of the FORS was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The FORS and IIRS were compared and each was correlated with the PPI. Cronbach's alpha was 0.90 for the 7-item IIRS and 0.88 for the 11-item FORS. ICC among 4 faculty observers had a mean of 0.61 and median of 0.65 (0.20, 0.86). Skill measured by the IIRS did not significantly correlate with FORS but correlated with the PPI. We developed two measures with good internal reliability for use by SPs and faculty observers. More research is needed to clarify the reasons for the lack of concordance between these measures and which may be more valid for use as a summative assessment measure. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Librarian | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2008.
All research outputs
#6,258,381
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,510
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,289
of 78,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#25
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 78,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.