PURPOSE: Interpreted patient encounters require distinct communication skills. The absence of available reliable, valid, and practical measures hinders the assessment of these skills; therefore, the authors aimed to construct and validate the Interpreter Scale (IS). METHOD: The authors constructed the IS based on expert consensus and prior studies. They administered the IS to two classes (n = 182) in an interpreted standardized patient (SP) case setting. Standardized interpreters in the examination room assessed, using the IS, students' communication skills. Concurrently, SPs, using the validated Patient-Physician Interaction scale (PPI) and the Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS), also assessed students' skills. Trained observers watched DVDs and used the Faculty Observer Rating Scale (FORS) to assess student performance. A prior study documented the qualities of the IIRS and FORS. The authors determined the internal consistency reliability and examined construct validity of IS scores through factor analysis and concordance with other measures' scores. RESULTS: IS reliability analysis yielded Cronbach alpha = 0.77. Factor analysis demonstrated two IS dimensions. Nine items, "managing the encounter," and four items, "setting the stage," explained 76% and 15% of score variance, respectively. IS and FORS scores significantly correlated (r = 0.385; P < .0001). IS factor 1 scores significantly correlated (all P < .0001) with FORS (r = 0.402), IIRS (r = 0.277), and PPI (r = 0.332) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The IS has reasonable internal consistency reliability and construct validity to warrant use for formatively measuring student communication skills in interpreted SP encounters, and it needs testing in actual patient encounters.
PURPOSE: Interpreted patient encounters require distinct communication skills. The absence of available reliable, valid, and practical measures hinders the assessment of these skills; therefore, the authors aimed to construct and validate the Interpreter Scale (IS). METHOD: The authors constructed the IS based on expert consensus and prior studies. They administered the IS to two classes (n = 182) in an interpreted standardized patient (SP) case setting. Standardized interpreters in the examination room assessed, using the IS, students' communication skills. Concurrently, SPs, using the validated Patient-Physician Interaction scale (PPI) and the Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS), also assessed students' skills. Trained observers watched DVDs and used the Faculty Observer Rating Scale (FORS) to assess student performance. A prior study documented the qualities of the IIRS and FORS. The authors determined the internal consistency reliability and examined construct validity of IS scores through factor analysis and concordance with other measures' scores. RESULTS: IS reliability analysis yielded Cronbach alpha = 0.77. Factor analysis demonstrated two IS dimensions. Nine items, "managing the encounter," and four items, "setting the stage," explained 76% and 15% of score variance, respectively. IS and FORS scores significantly correlated (r = 0.385; P < .0001). IS factor 1 scores significantly correlated (all P < .0001) with FORS (r = 0.402), IIRS (r = 0.277), and PPI (r = 0.332) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The IS has reasonable internal consistency reliability and construct validity to warrant use for formatively measuring student communication skills in interpreted SP encounters, and it needs testing in actual patient encounters.
Authors: Sylvia Bereknyei; Andrew Nevins; Erika Schillinger; Ronald D Garcia; A Elizabeth Stuart; Clarence H Braddock Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Juan R Deliz; Fayola F Fears; Kai E Jones; Jenny Tobat; Douglas Char; Will R Ross Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 5.128