A tool for self-assessment of communication skills and professionalism in residents
2009

Self-Assessment Tool for Communication Skills in Medical Residents

Sample size: 130 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Andrew B. Symons, Andrews Swanson, Denise McGuigan, Susan Orrange, Elie Akl

Primary Institution: University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

Hypothesis

Can residents accurately self-assess their communication skills and professionalism using a modified questionnaire?

Conclusion

The study found that the modified self-assessment tool is reliable for evaluating residents' communication skills and professionalism.

Supporting Evidence

  • The tool showed high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.86.
  • Factor analysis revealed two main components of professionalism.
  • Males rated their communication skills higher than females.
  • International graduates rated themselves better at listening than U.S. graduates.
  • Surgical residents rated themselves higher in discussing options with patients.

Takeaway

This study created a questionnaire to help medical residents check how good they are at talking to patients and being professional.

Methodology

Residents completed a modified version of the ABIM Patient Assessment survey, followed by statistical analyses including factor analysis and reliability testing.

Potential Biases

Self-assessment may lead to inflated perceptions of competence, particularly among those performing poorly.

Limitations

Self-assessment may not accurately reflect actual performance and could be influenced by social desirability bias.

Participant Demographics

{"female":51,"male":79,"post_graduation_year":{"year_1":30,"year_2":42,"year_3":30,"year_4":14,"greater_than_year_4":14},"medical_degree":{"us_graduates":61,"international_graduates":69},"residency_type":{"surgical":44,"non_surgical":85}}

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.003

Confidence Interval

± 0.14

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6920-9-1

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication