↓ Skip to main content

The Relationship between Checklist Scores on a Communication OSCE and Analogue Patients’ Perceptions of Communication

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
The Relationship between Checklist Scores on a Communication OSCE and Analogue Patients’ Perceptions of Communication
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, March 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10459-004-1790-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen M. Mazor, Judith K. Ockene, H. Jane Rogers, Michele M. Carlin, Mark E. Quirk

Abstract

Many efforts to teach and evaluate physician-patient communication are based on two assumptions: first, that communication can be conceptualized as consisting of specific observable behaviors, and second, that physicians who exhibit certain behaviors are more effective in communicating with patients. These assumptions are usually implicit, and are seldom tested. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether specific communication behaviors are positively related to patients' perceptions of effective communication. Trained raters used a checklist to record the presence or absence of specific communication behaviors in 100 encounters in a communication Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Lay volunteers served as analogue patients and rated communication during each encounter. Correlations between checklist scores and analogue patients' ratings were not significantly different from zero for four of five OSCE cases studied. Within each case, certain communication behaviors did appear to be related to patients' ratings, but the critical behaviors were not consistent across cases. We conclude that scores from OSCE communication checklists may not predict patients' perceptions of communication. Determinants of patient perceptions of physician communication may be more subtle, more complex, and more case-specific than we were able to capture with the current checklist.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Pakistan 1 2%
Unknown 55 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Other 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 21 36%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 47%
Social Sciences 10 17%
Psychology 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 6 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 April 2012.
All research outputs
#13,663,331
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#569
of 849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,567
of 59,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 59,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.