Chandrapal Jason, Park Chan, Holtschneider Mary, Doty Joe, Taylor Dean
Department of Clinical Simulation, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Department of Orthopedics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2022 Apr 26;9:23821205221079567. doi: 10.1177/23821205221079567. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a skillset that influences and impacts an individual's ability to create, foster, and maintain strong relationships. In healthcare settings optimal patient centered care exists when teamwork, critical thinking, selfless service, integrity, and emotional intelligence are effectively practiced. While various methods exist to teach EI in the preprofessional and professional settings, the assessment of the efficacy of these types of training remains elusive. We propose a novel use of EI assessments to determine the effectiveness of EI programs and suggest that the information obtained can help shape and improve future EI education.
Volunteer participants involved in the 2020-2021 Feagin Leadership Program (FLP) at Duke University were recruited for this study. FLP is a one year program that aims to train healthcare leadership skills, with a special emphasis on EI. It is comprised of various stages of healthcare learners with a desire to improve their healthcare leadership skills. All participants took both an EI self-assessment (SSEIT) and EI ability assessment (MSCEIT) both before and after a dedicated 5-hour EI educational session. Individuals must have completed both a pre- and post-test for at least one assessment to be included in the study. Apart from standard descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon sign rank tests were utilized to determine the effectiveness of the educational session by comparing pre- and post-tests within each assessment. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to compare the results of the SSEIT and MSCEIT.
A total of 32 FLP scholars initially participated in which 18 completed all assessments. Average age was 29 years old and consisted of medical students (n = 16), residents (n = 7), fellows (n = 7), advanced practice provider (n = 1) and a researcher (n = 1). Group analysis of the SSEIT pre and post scores were 131 (±13, range 98-149) and 136(± 13, 106-105), respectively which were statistically significant. Pre and post MSCEIT scores were 102 (±20, range 32-141) and 103 (±12, range 80-121), which were not significant. The EI branches with the highest score on each test was Managing Own Emotions and Understanding Emotions for the SSEIT and MSCEIT respectively while Perceiving Emotions was the lowest for both assessments. Comparison of the SSEIT and MSCEIT demonstrated a moderate correlation that was statistically significant.
In our study participants felt their EI improved following the EI educational session, however this did not appear translate into their actual ability. This could be a function of self-report bias or a limitation of the EI assessments. More studies in this space are needed to make this determination. Additionally, the strengths of this specific program were within the strategic use of emotions therefore in the future more attention should be placed on experiential use of emotions, specifically perceiving emotions. As EI education and training becomes more prevalent it is important to not only accurately assess an individual's EI ability but also the effectiveness of the education being presented. We propose that EI assessments can be utilized as a tool to measure the effectiveness of EI education and receive formative programmatic feedback.
情商（EI）是一种技能组合，会影响并冲击个人建立、培养和维持牢固人际关系的能力。在医疗环境中，当团队合作、批判性思维、无私服务、正直和情商得到有效践行时，才会存在以患者为中心的最佳护理。虽然在专业前和专业环境中有多种教授情商的方法，但对这类培训效果的评估仍然难以捉摸。我们提议以一种新颖的方式使用情商评估来确定情商项目的有效性，并表明所获得的信息有助于塑造和改进未来的情商教育。
本研究招募了参与杜克大学2020 - 2021年费金领导力项目（FLP）的志愿者参与者。FLP是一个为期一年的项目，旨在培养医疗领导技能，特别强调情商。它由不同阶段渴望提升医疗领导技能的医疗学习者组成。所有参与者在专门的5小时情商教育课程前后都进行了情商自我评估（SSEIT）和情商能力评估（MSCEIT）。个人必须至少完成一项评估的前后测试才能纳入研究。除了标准描述性统计外，还使用威尔科克森符号秩检验通过比较每次评估中的前后测试来确定教育课程的有效性。使用斯皮尔曼等级相关系数来比较SSEIT和MSCEIT的结果。
共有32名FLP学者最初参与，其中18人完成了所有评估。平均年龄为29岁，包括医学生（n = 16）、住院医师（n = 7）、研究员（n = 7）、高级实践提供者（n = 1）和一名研究人员（n = 1）。SSEIT前后得分的组分析分别为131（±13，范围98 - 149）和136（±13，106 - 105），具有统计学意义。MSCEIT前后得分分别为102（±20，范围32 - 141）和103（±12，范围80 - 121），无统计学意义。每次测试中得分最高的情商分支在SSEIT中是管理自己的情绪，在MSCEIT中是理解情绪，而两种评估中感知情绪得分最低。SSEIT和MSCEIT的比较显示出中等程度的相关性，具有统计学意义。
在我们的研究中，参与者感觉他们的情商在情商教育课程后有所提高，但这似乎并未转化为他们的实际能力。这可能是自我报告偏差的作用或情商评估的局限性。需要在这个领域进行更多研究来做出这一判断。此外，这个特定项目的优势在于情绪的战略运用，因此未来应更多关注情绪的体验性运用，特别是感知情绪。随着情商教育和培训变得更加普遍，不仅准确评估个人的情商能力，而且评估所提供教育的有效性都很重要。我们提议情商评估可以用作衡量情商教育有效性并获得形成性项目反馈的工具。
