↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of OSCE checklists used to assess the communication skills of undergraduate medical students: A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Education & Counseling, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and validity of OSCE checklists used to assess the communication skills of undergraduate medical students: A systematic review
Published in
Patient Education & Counseling, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Winny Setyonugroho, Kieran M. Kennedy, Thomas J.B. Kropmans

Abstract

To explore inter-rater agreement between reviewers comparing reliability and validity of checklist forms that claim to assess the communication skills of undergraduate medical students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Papers explaining rubrics of OSCE checklist forms were identified from Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ProQuest Education Databases up to 2013. Included were those studies that report empirical validity or reliability values for the communication skills assessment checklists used. Excluded were those papers that did not report reliability or validity. Papers focusing on generic communication skills, history taking, physician-patient communication, interviewing, negotiating treatment, information giving, empathy and 18 other domains (ICC -0.12-1) were identified. Regarding the validity and reliability of the communication skills checklists, agreement between reviewers was 0.45. Heterogeneity in the rubrics used in the assessment of communication skills and a lack of agreement between reviewers makes comparison of student competences within and across institutions difficult. Consideration should be afforded to the adoption of a standardized measurement instrument to assess communication skills in undergraduate medical education. Future research will focus upon evaluating the potential impact of adoption of a standardized measurement instrument.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 201 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Other 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Unspecified 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Other 94 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 52%
Unspecified 30 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 19 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,394,700
of 12,262,954 outputs
Outputs from Patient Education & Counseling
#875
of 2,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,663
of 238,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Education & Counseling
#18
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,262,954 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 238,734 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 59% of its contemporaries.