Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan 27:12:6.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-6.

Validity evidence and reliability of a simulated patient feedback instrument

Claudia Schlegel  1 , Ulrich Woermann, Jan-Joost Rethans, Cees van der Vleuten
Affiliations

Validity evidence and reliability of a simulated patient feedback instrument

Claudia Schlegel et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: In the training of healthcare professionals, one of the advantages of communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is the SP's ability to provide direct feedback to students after a simulated clinical encounter. The quality of SP feedback must be monitored, especially because it is well known that feedback can have a profound effect on student performance. Due to the current lack of valid and reliable instruments to assess the quality of SP feedback, our study examined the validity and reliability of one potential instrument, the 'modified Quality of Simulated Patient Feedback Form' (mQSF).

Methods: Content validity of the mQSF was assessed by inviting experts in the area of simulated clinical encounters to rate the importance of the mQSF items. Moreover, generalizability theory was used to examine the reliability of the mQSF. Our data came from videotapes of clinical encounters between six simulated patients and six students and the ensuing feedback from the SPs to the students. Ten faculty members judged the SP feedback according to the items on the mQSF. Three weeks later, this procedure was repeated with the same faculty members and recordings.

Results: All but two items of the mQSF received importance ratings of > 2.5 on a four-point rating scale. A generalizability coefficient of 0.77 was established with two judges observing one encounter.

Conclusions: The findings for content validity and reliability with two judges suggest that the mQSF is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of feedback provided by simulated patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The object of measurement for the D-study. Facet "V" (video), of a CD-recorded clinical encounter, number (n) of judges (facet J), occasions (facet O)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ryan A, Walshe A, Gaffney R, Shanks A, Burgoyne L, Wiskin C. Using standardized patients to assass communication skills in medical and nursing education. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:(24):1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosse HM, Nickel M, Huwendiek S, Junger J, Schultz JH, Nikendei C. Peer role-play and standardised patients in communication training: a comparative study on the student perspective on acceptability, realism, and perceived effect. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:27. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-27. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bokken L, Linssen T, Scherpbier A, van der Vleuten CPM, Rethans J. Feedack by simulated patients in undergraduate medical education: a systemic review of the literature. Med Educ. 2009;43:(11):202–210. - PubMed
    1. Holzinger A, Kickmeier MD, Wassertheurer S, Hessinger M. Learning performance with interactive simulations in medical education: lessons learned from results of learning complex physiologicyl models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator. Comput Educ. 2009;52(1):292–301.
    1. van de Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie W, ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42:189–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02973.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources