OBJECTIVE: A focus on the communicator competency is considered to be an important requirement to help physicians to acquire consultation skills. A feedback questionnaire, in which patients assess consultation skills might be a useful learning tool. An existing questionnaire on patient perception of patient-centeredness (PPPC) was adapted to cover the 'communicator' items in the competency profile. We assessed the face and content validity, the construct validity and the internal consistency of this new patient feedback on consultation skills (PFC) questionnaire. METHODS: We assessed the face validity of the PFC by interviewing patients and general practice trainees (GPTs) during the developmental process. The content validity was determined by experts (n=10). First-year GPTs (23) collected 222 PFCs, from which the data were used to assess the construct validity (factor analysis), internal consistency, response rates and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The PFC adequately covers the corresponding 'communicator' competency (face and content validity). Factor analysis showed a one-dimensional construct. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.89). For the single items, the response rate varied from 89.2% to 100%; the maximum score (ceiling effect) varied from 45.5% to 89.2%. CONCLUSION: The PFC appears to be a valid, internally consistent instrument. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PFC may be a valuable learning tool with which GPTs, other physicians and medical students can acquire feedback from patients regarding their consultation skills.
OBJECTIVE: A focus on the communicator competency is considered to be an important requirement to help physicians to acquire consultation skills. A feedback questionnaire, in which patients assess consultation skills might be a useful learning tool. An existing questionnaire on patient perception of patient-centeredness (PPPC) was adapted to cover the 'communicator' items in the competency profile. We assessed the face and content validity, the construct validity and the internal consistency of this new patient feedback on consultation skills (PFC) questionnaire. METHODS: We assessed the face validity of the PFC by interviewing patients and general practice trainees (GPTs) during the developmental process. The content validity was determined by experts (n=10). First-year GPTs (23) collected 222 PFCs, from which the data were used to assess the construct validity (factor analysis), internal consistency, response rates and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The PFC adequately covers the corresponding 'communicator' competency (face and content validity). Factor analysis showed a one-dimensional construct. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.89). For the single items, the response rate varied from 89.2% to 100%; the maximum score (ceiling effect) varied from 45.5% to 89.2%. CONCLUSION: The PFC appears to be a valid, internally consistent instrument. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PFC may be a valuable learning tool with which GPTs, other physicians and medical students can acquire feedback from patients regarding their consultation skills.
Authors: Chantal F Hillebregt; Auke J Vlonk; Marc A Bruijnzeels; Onno Cp van Schayck; Niels H Chavannes Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2016-12-23
Authors: Marianne Brouwers; Ellemieke Rasenberg; Chris van Weel; Roland Laan; Evelyn van Weel-Baumgarten Journal: Med Educ Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 6.251