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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical education 2012-03, Vol.46 (3), p.267-276
Hauptverfasser: Huntley, Christopher D, Salmon, Peter, Fisher, Peter L, Fletcher, Ian, Young, Bridget
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&amp;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