Lisa Diamond1, Sukyung Chung, Warren Ferguson, Javier Gonzalez, Elizabeth A Jacobs, Francesca Gany. 1. Departments of *Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Immigrant Health and Cancer Disparities Service †Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ‡Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY §Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA ∥Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA ¶Department of Medicine & Health Innovation Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with limited English proficiency experience poor patient-clinician communication. Most studies of language concordance have not measured clinician non-English-language proficiency. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of the self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency by clinicians compared with an oral proficiency interview. SUBJECTS: Primary care providers (PCPs) in California and Massachusetts. MEASURES: PCPs first completed a self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using a version of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale, followed by the Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA), a validated oral proficiency interview. We used nonparametric approaches to analyze CCLA scores at each ILR scale level and the correlation between CCLA and ILR scale scores. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs in California and 51 in Massachusetts participated (n=67). Participants spoke Spanish (79%), followed by Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. The respondents self-assessed as having "excellent" proficiency 9% of the time, "very good" proficiency 24% of the time, "good" proficiency 46% of the time, "fair" proficiency 18% of the time, and "poor" proficiency 3% of the time. The average CCLA score was 76/100. There was a positive correlation between self-reported ILR scale and CCLA score (σ=0.49, P<0.001). The variance in CCLA scores was wider in the middle categories than in the low or high ILR categories (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using the ILR correlates to tested language proficiency, particularly on the low and high ends of the scale. Participants who self-assess in the middle of the scale may require additional testing. Further research needs to be conducted to identify the characteristics of PCP whose self-assessments are inaccurate and, thus, require proficiency testing.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with limited English proficiency experience poor patient-clinician communication. Most studies of language concordance have not measured clinician non-English-language proficiency. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of the self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency by clinicians compared with an oral proficiency interview. SUBJECTS: Primary care providers (PCPs) in California and Massachusetts. MEASURES: PCPs first completed a self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using a version of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale, followed by the Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA), a validated oral proficiency interview. We used nonparametric approaches to analyze CCLA scores at each ILR scale level and the correlation between CCLA and ILR scale scores. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs in California and 51 in Massachusetts participated (n=67). Participants spoke Spanish (79%), followed by Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. The respondents self-assessed as having "excellent" proficiency 9% of the time, "very good" proficiency 24% of the time, "good" proficiency 46% of the time, "fair" proficiency 18% of the time, and "poor" proficiency 3% of the time. The average CCLA score was 76/100. There was a positive correlation between self-reported ILR scale and CCLA score (σ=0.49, P<0.001). The variance in CCLA scores was wider in the middle categories than in the low or high ILR categories (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using the ILR correlates to tested language proficiency, particularly on the low and high ends of the scale. Participants who self-assess in the middle of the scale may require additional testing. Further research needs to be conducted to identify the characteristics of PCP whose self-assessments are inaccurate and, thus, require proficiency testing.
Authors: Alexander R Green; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Anna T R Legedza; Michael P Massagli; Russell S Phillips; Lisa I Iezzoni Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alicia Fernandez; Dean Schillinger; Kevin Grumbach; Anne Rosenthal; Anita L Stewart; Frances Wang; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Dara H Sorkin; Russell S Phillips; Sheldon Greenfield; Michael P Massagli; Brian Clarridge; Sherrie H Kaplan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Melissa M Parker; Alicia Fernández; Howard H Moffet; Richard W Grant; Antonia Torreblanca; Andrew J Karter Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David S Edelman; Dana M Palmer; Emily K Romero; Bernard P Chang; Ian M Kronish Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Darshan N Patel; Elliot Wakeam; Margaux Genoff; Imran Mujawar; Stanley W Ashley; Lisa C Diamond Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Lisa C Diamond; Imran Mujawar; Erik Vickstrom; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Francesca Gany Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 5.128