Development and validation of a computer-based situational judgement test to assess medical students' communication skills in the field of shared decision making. Issue 11 (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kiessling, Claudia; Bauer, Johannes; Gartmeier, Martin; Iblher, Peter; Karsten, Gudrun; Kiesewetter, Jan; Moeller, Grit E.; Wiesbeck, Anne; Zupanic, Michaela; Fischer, Martin R.
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 99:Issue 11(2016)
• Page Start: 1858
• Page End: 1864
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: Communication skills -- Shared decision making -- Computer-based assessment -- Medical education -- Situational judgement test; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Computer-based tests are feasible to assess cognitive aspects of communication. Shared decision making (SDM) is an essential task which also needs to be assessed. We found empirical evidence that SDM can be reliably and validly assessed by a CBT. We recommend including at least 40 questions for a summative CS course assessment. Abstract: Objective: To develop a computer-based test (CBT) measuring medical students' communication skills in the field of shared decision making (SDM) and to evaluate its construct validity. Methods: The CBT was developed in the context of an experimental study comparing three different trainings for SDM (including e-learning and/or role-play) and a control group. Assessment included a CBT (Part A: seven context-poor questions, Part B: 15 context-rich questions) and interviews with two simulated patients (SP-assessment). Cronbach's α was used to test the internal consistency. Correlations between CBT and SP-assessment were used to further evaluate construct validity of the CBT. Results: Seventy-two students took part in the study. Mean value for the CBT score was 72% of the total score. Cronbach's α was 0.582. After eliminating three items, Cronbach's α increased to 0.625. Correlations between the CBT and SP-assessment were low to moderate. The control group scored significantly lower than the training settings (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The CBT was reliable enough to test for group differences. For summative assessment purposes, considerably more questions would be needed. Practice implications: We encourage teachers who particularly work with large student numbers to consider CBT as a feasible assessment method for cognitive aspects of communication skills.