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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017;22(1):1392823.
doi: 10.1080/10872981.2017.1392823.

How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check

K Radziej  1 , J Loechner  2 , C Engerer  3   4 , M Niglio de Figueiredo  5   6 , J Freund  5 , H Sattel  1 , C Bachmann  7 , P O Berberat  3 , A Dinkel  1 , A Wuensch  3   5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check

K Radziej et al. Med Educ Online. 2017.

Abstract

Background: Good communication is a core competency for all physicians. Thus, medical students require adequate preparation in communication skills. For research purposes, as well as for evaluation in teaching, there is a clear need for reliable assessment tools. We analyzed the shortcomings of existing instruments and saw a need for a new rating scale. The aim of this publication is to describe the development process for, and evaluation of, a new rating scale.

Methods: First, we developed the rating scale in 10 steps. Then, two raters evaluated the newly developed rating scale by rating 135 videotaped consultations of medical students with standardized patients. Additionally, standardized patients evaluated students' performance, which was used as an outside criterion to validate ratings.

Results: Our rating scale comprises six domains with 13 specific items evaluated on a five-point Likert scale: initiating conversation, patient's perception, structure of conversation, patient's emotions, end of conversation, and general communication skills. Item-total correlation coefficients between the checklist items ranged from 0.15 to 0.78. Subscale consistency was calculated for domains comprised of more than one item and Cronbach's α ≥ 0.77, indicating acceptable consistency. Standardized patients' global evaluation correlated moderately with overall expert ratings (Spearman's ρ = .40, p < .001).

Conclusion: Our rating scale is a reliable and applicable assessment tool. The rating scale focuses on the evaluation of general communication skills and can be applied in research as well as in evaluations, such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE).

Abbreviations: CST: Communication skills training; ICC: Intra-class correlation coefficient; OSCE: Objective structured clinical examination; SP: Standardized patients; SD: Standard deviation; M: Mean.

Keywords: Communication skills training; OSCE; assessment tool; medical education; rating scale.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Coding system items of the ComOn check rating scale
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Simpson M, Buckman R, Stewart M, et al. Doctor-patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. BMJ. 1991;303(6814):1385–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Makoul G, Schofield T.. Communication teaching and assessment in medical education: an international consensus statement. Patient Educ Couns Educ Couns. 1999;37(2):191–195. - PubMed
    1. Makoul G. Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo consensus statement. Acad Med. 2001;76(4):390–393. - PubMed
    1. Rimal RN, Lapinski MK. Why health communication is important in public health. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(4):247. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kiessling C, Dieterich A, Fabry G, et al. Communication and social competencies in medical education in German-speaking countries: the basel consensus statement. Results of a Delphi Survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(2):259–266. - PubMed

Publication types