LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations
Medical Education 2012: 46: 267–276 Objectives We reviewed papers describing the development of instruments for assessing clinical communication in undergraduate medical students. The instruments had important limitations: most lacked a theoretical basis, and their psychometric properties were ofte...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical education 2012-03, Vol.46 (3), p.267-276 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 276 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 267 |
container_title | Medical education |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Huntley, Christopher D Salmon, Peter Fisher, Peter L Fletcher, Ian Young, Bridget |
description | Medical Education 2012: 46: 267–276
Objectives We reviewed papers describing the development of instruments for assessing clinical communication in undergraduate medical students. The instruments had important limitations: most lacked a theoretical basis, and their psychometric properties were often poor or inadequately investigated and reported. We therefore describe the development of a new instrument, the Liverpool Undergraduate Communication Assessment Scale (LUCAS), which is intended to overcome some of these limitations. We designed LUCAS to reflect the theory that communication is contextually dependent, inherently creative and cannot be fully described within a conceptual framework of discrete skills.
Methods We investigated the preliminary psychometric properties of LUCAS in two studies. To assess construct and external validity, we examined correlations between examiners’ LUCAS ratings and simulated patients’ ratings of their relationships with students in Year 1 formative (n = 384) and summative (n = 347) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) samples. Item–total correlations and item difficulty analyses were also performed. The dimensionality of LUCAS was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. We also assessed inter‐rater reliability; four raters used LUCAS to rate 40 video‐recorded encounters between Year 1 students and simulated patients.
Results Simulated patient ratings correlated with examiner ratings across two OSCE datasets. All items correlated with the total score. Item difficulty showed LUCAS was able to discriminate between student performances. LUCAS had a two‐dimensional factor structure: we labelled Factor 1 creative communication and Factor 2 procedural communication. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.85), indicating acceptable reliability.
Conclusions We designed LUCAS to move the primary focus of examiners away from an assessment of students’ enactment of behavioural skills to a judgement of how well students’ communication met patients’ needs. LUCAS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. The instrument can be administered easily and efficiently and is therefore suitable for use in medical school examinations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04162.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_921429138</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>921429138</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4872-dd08fc48cfd317d9f776569d60edb709258c06ab88ddfe558b2a91744f62dcfe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtuEzEYhS0EoqHwCsgbxGoG2zO-DAukKiktKBQJCEhsLI8vwmEuxfbQ5O3xNCFs8cZH-r__2PoAgBiVOJ9X2xJXjBakIVVJEMYlqjEj5e4BWJwGD8ECVUgUeYzOwJMYtwghTmvxGJwRUpGaErYA-_VmefH5NVQw_bBjsMlr1XV76Ac3ht6aHGIKU2-HBNMIVYw2Rqg7P8wg1GPfT3NMfhwyC8d2a3Xyvy2c13SaQu444Xanej_cw_EpeORUF-2z430ONm8vvyyvi_XHq3fLi3Wha8FJYQwSLkftTIW5aRznjLLGMGRNy1FDqNCIqVYIY5ylVLRENZjXtWPEaGerc_Dy0Hsbxl-TjUn2PmrbdWqw4xRlQ3BNGlyJTIoDqcMYY7BO3gbfq7CXGMnZu9zKWa-c9crZu7z3Lnd59fnxkanN1k6Lf0Vn4MURUDGbcEEN2sd_HKWcEUEz9-bA3fnO7v_7A_LD5Wozx1xQHAp8THZ3KlDhp2S84lR-u7mSX1efVuz7-xu5rP4AGsKwnQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>921429138</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Huntley, Christopher D ; Salmon, Peter ; Fisher, Peter L ; Fletcher, Ian ; Young, Bridget</creator><creatorcontrib>Huntley, Christopher D ; Salmon, Peter ; Fisher, Peter L ; Fletcher, Ian ; Young, Bridget</creatorcontrib><description>Medical Education 2012: 46: 267–276
Objectives We reviewed papers describing the development of instruments for assessing clinical communication in undergraduate medical students. The instruments had important limitations: most lacked a theoretical basis, and their psychometric properties were often poor or inadequately investigated and reported. We therefore describe the development of a new instrument, the Liverpool Undergraduate Communication Assessment Scale (LUCAS), which is intended to overcome some of these limitations. We designed LUCAS to reflect the theory that communication is contextually dependent, inherently creative and cannot be fully described within a conceptual framework of discrete skills.
Methods We investigated the preliminary psychometric properties of LUCAS in two studies. To assess construct and external validity, we examined correlations between examiners’ LUCAS ratings and simulated patients’ ratings of their relationships with students in Year 1 formative (n = 384) and summative (n = 347) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) samples. Item–total correlations and item difficulty analyses were also performed. The dimensionality of LUCAS was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. We also assessed inter‐rater reliability; four raters used LUCAS to rate 40 video‐recorded encounters between Year 1 students and simulated patients.
Results Simulated patient ratings correlated with examiner ratings across two OSCE datasets. All items correlated with the total score. Item difficulty showed LUCAS was able to discriminate between student performances. LUCAS had a two‐dimensional factor structure: we labelled Factor 1 creative communication and Factor 2 procedural communication. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.85), indicating acceptable reliability.
Conclusions We designed LUCAS to move the primary focus of examiners away from an assessment of students’ enactment of behavioural skills to a judgement of how well students’ communication met patients’ needs. LUCAS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. The instrument can be administered easily and efficiently and is therefore suitable for use in medical school examinations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04162.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22324526</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence - standards ; Communication ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Educational Measurement - methods ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Female ; Health participants ; Humans ; Male ; Medical History Taking ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Physical Examination ; Psychometrics ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Reproducibility of Results ; Students, Medical ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2012-03, Vol.46 (3), p.267-276</ispartof><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4872-dd08fc48cfd317d9f776569d60edb709258c06ab88ddfe558b2a91744f62dcfe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4872-dd08fc48cfd317d9f776569d60edb709258c06ab88ddfe558b2a91744f62dcfe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2011.04162.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2011.04162.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25576285$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22324526$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huntley, Christopher D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmon, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Peter L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Bridget</creatorcontrib><title>LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Medical Education 2012: 46: 267–276
Objectives We reviewed papers describing the development of instruments for assessing clinical communication in undergraduate medical students. The instruments had important limitations: most lacked a theoretical basis, and their psychometric properties were often poor or inadequately investigated and reported. We therefore describe the development of a new instrument, the Liverpool Undergraduate Communication Assessment Scale (LUCAS), which is intended to overcome some of these limitations. We designed LUCAS to reflect the theory that communication is contextually dependent, inherently creative and cannot be fully described within a conceptual framework of discrete skills.
Methods We investigated the preliminary psychometric properties of LUCAS in two studies. To assess construct and external validity, we examined correlations between examiners’ LUCAS ratings and simulated patients’ ratings of their relationships with students in Year 1 formative (n = 384) and summative (n = 347) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) samples. Item–total correlations and item difficulty analyses were also performed. The dimensionality of LUCAS was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. We also assessed inter‐rater reliability; four raters used LUCAS to rate 40 video‐recorded encounters between Year 1 students and simulated patients.
Results Simulated patient ratings correlated with examiner ratings across two OSCE datasets. All items correlated with the total score. Item difficulty showed LUCAS was able to discriminate between student performances. LUCAS had a two‐dimensional factor structure: we labelled Factor 1 creative communication and Factor 2 procedural communication. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.85), indicating acceptable reliability.
Conclusions We designed LUCAS to move the primary focus of examiners away from an assessment of students’ enactment of behavioural skills to a judgement of how well students’ communication met patients’ needs. LUCAS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. The instrument can be administered easily and efficiently and is therefore suitable for use in medical school examinations.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - standards</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - methods</subject><subject>Factor Analysis, Statistical</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical History Taking</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Physical Examination</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Students, Medical</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtuEzEYhS0EoqHwCsgbxGoG2zO-DAukKiktKBQJCEhsLI8vwmEuxfbQ5O3xNCFs8cZH-r__2PoAgBiVOJ9X2xJXjBakIVVJEMYlqjEj5e4BWJwGD8ECVUgUeYzOwJMYtwghTmvxGJwRUpGaErYA-_VmefH5NVQw_bBjsMlr1XV76Ac3ht6aHGIKU2-HBNMIVYw2Rqg7P8wg1GPfT3NMfhwyC8d2a3Xyvy2c13SaQu444Xanej_cw_EpeORUF-2z430ONm8vvyyvi_XHq3fLi3Wha8FJYQwSLkftTIW5aRznjLLGMGRNy1FDqNCIqVYIY5ylVLRENZjXtWPEaGerc_Dy0Hsbxl-TjUn2PmrbdWqw4xRlQ3BNGlyJTIoDqcMYY7BO3gbfq7CXGMnZu9zKWa-c9crZu7z3Lnd59fnxkanN1k6Lf0Vn4MURUDGbcEEN2sd_HKWcEUEz9-bA3fnO7v_7A_LD5Wozx1xQHAp8THZ3KlDhp2S84lR-u7mSX1efVuz7-xu5rP4AGsKwnQ</recordid><startdate>201203</startdate><enddate>201203</enddate><creator>Huntley, Christopher D</creator><creator>Salmon, Peter</creator><creator>Fisher, Peter L</creator><creator>Fletcher, Ian</creator><creator>Young, Bridget</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201203</creationdate><title>LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations</title><author>Huntley, Christopher D ; Salmon, Peter ; Fisher, Peter L ; Fletcher, Ian ; Young, Bridget</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4872-dd08fc48cfd317d9f776569d60edb709258c06ab88ddfe558b2a91744f62dcfe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - standards</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - methods</topic><topic>Factor Analysis, Statistical</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical History Taking</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Physical Examination</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Students, Medical</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huntley, Christopher D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmon, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Peter L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Bridget</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huntley, Christopher D</au><au>Salmon, Peter</au><au>Fisher, Peter L</au><au>Fletcher, Ian</au><au>Young, Bridget</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2012-03</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>267</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>267-276</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Medical Education 2012: 46: 267–276
Objectives We reviewed papers describing the development of instruments for assessing clinical communication in undergraduate medical students. The instruments had important limitations: most lacked a theoretical basis, and their psychometric properties were often poor or inadequately investigated and reported. We therefore describe the development of a new instrument, the Liverpool Undergraduate Communication Assessment Scale (LUCAS), which is intended to overcome some of these limitations. We designed LUCAS to reflect the theory that communication is contextually dependent, inherently creative and cannot be fully described within a conceptual framework of discrete skills.
Methods We investigated the preliminary psychometric properties of LUCAS in two studies. To assess construct and external validity, we examined correlations between examiners’ LUCAS ratings and simulated patients’ ratings of their relationships with students in Year 1 formative (n = 384) and summative (n = 347) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) samples. Item–total correlations and item difficulty analyses were also performed. The dimensionality of LUCAS was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. We also assessed inter‐rater reliability; four raters used LUCAS to rate 40 video‐recorded encounters between Year 1 students and simulated patients.
Results Simulated patient ratings correlated with examiner ratings across two OSCE datasets. All items correlated with the total score. Item difficulty showed LUCAS was able to discriminate between student performances. LUCAS had a two‐dimensional factor structure: we labelled Factor 1 creative communication and Factor 2 procedural communication. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.85), indicating acceptable reliability.
Conclusions We designed LUCAS to move the primary focus of examiners away from an assessment of students’ enactment of behavioural skills to a judgement of how well students’ communication met patients’ needs. LUCAS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. The instrument can be administered easily and efficiently and is therefore suitable for use in medical school examinations.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22324526</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04162.x</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0308-0110 |
ispartof | Medical education, 2012-03, Vol.46 (3), p.267-276 |
issn | 0308-0110 1365-2923 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_921429138 |
source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost Education Source; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Biological and medical sciences Clinical Competence - standards Communication Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods Educational Measurement - methods Factor Analysis, Statistical Female Health participants Humans Male Medical History Taking Medical sciences Miscellaneous Physical Examination Psychometrics Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Reproducibility of Results Students, Medical Young Adult |
title | LUCAS: a theoretically informed instrument to assess clinical communication in objective structured clinical examinations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T11%3A08%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=LUCAS:%20a%20theoretically%20informed%20instrument%20to%20assess%20clinical%20communication%20in%20objective%20structured%20clinical%20examinations&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Huntley,%20Christopher%20D&rft.date=2012-03&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=267&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=267-276&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04162.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E921429138%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=921429138&rft_id=info:pmid/22324526&rfr_iscdi=true |