School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle,WA, USA.
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Sep;84(3):359-67. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.003. Epub 2011 May 6.
Little is known about the best approaches and format for measuring physicians' communication skills in an online environment. This study examines the reliability and validity of scores from two Web-based communication skill assessment formats.
We created two online communication skill assessment formats: (a) MCQ (multiple-choice questions) consisting of video-based multiple-choice questions; (b) multi-format including video-based multiple-choice questions with rationales, Likert-type scales, and free text responses of what physicians would say to a patient. We randomized 100 general internists to each test format. Peer and patient ratings collected via the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) served as validity sources.
Seventy-seven internists completed the tests (MCQ: 38; multi-format: 39). The adjusted reliability was 0.74 for both formats. Excellent communicators, as based on their peer and patient ratings, performed slightly better on both tests than adequate communicators, though this difference was not statistically significant. Physicians in both groups rated test format innovative (4.2 out of 5.0).
The acceptable reliability and participants' overall positive experiences point to the value of ongoing research into rigorous Web-based communication skills assessment.
With efficient and reliable scoring, the Web offers an important way to measure and potentially enhance physicians' communication skills.
关于在网络环境中衡量医生沟通技巧的最佳方法和格式，目前所知甚少。本研究旨在检验两种基于网络的沟通技巧评估格式的信度和效度。
我们创建了两种在线沟通技巧评估格式：（a）MCQ（多项选择题），包含基于视频的多项选择题；（b）多格式，包括基于视频的多项选择题及其理由、李克特量表以及医生会对患者说的话的自由文本回复。我们将 100 名普通内科医生随机分配到每种测试格式中。同行和患者的评分是通过美国内科委员会（ABIM）收集的，作为有效性的来源。
77 名内科医生完成了测试（MCQ：38 人；多格式：39 人）。两种格式的调整后信度均为 0.74。根据同行和患者的评分，优秀沟通者在这两种测试中的表现略优于合格沟通者，但这种差异没有统计学意义。两组医生均认为测试格式具有创新性（5 分制得 4.2 分）。
可接受的信度和参与者整体的积极体验表明，对严格的基于网络的沟通技巧评估进行持续研究具有价值。
通过高效可靠的评分，网络提供了一种重要的方法来衡量和潜在地提高医生的沟通技巧。
