Validity evidence and reliability of a simulated patient feedback instrument

dc.creator	Schlegel Claudia
dc.creator	Woermann Ulrich
dc.creator	Rethans Jan-Joost
dc.creator	van der Vleuten Cees
dc.date	2012-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-20T22:05:29Z
dc.date.available	2015-07-20T22:05:29Z
dc.identifier	10.1186/1472-6920-12-6
dc.identifier	1472-6920
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/fddc79c0138a428fa2f044092029c9ba
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/9788
dc.identifier.uri	https://doaj.org/article/fddc79c0138a428fa2f044092029c9ba
dc.description	<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the training of healthcare professionals, one of the advantages of communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is the SP's ability to provide direct feedback to students after a simulated clinical encounter. The quality of SP feedback must be monitored, especially because it is well known that feedback can have a profound effect on student performance. Due to the current lack of valid and reliable instruments to assess the quality of SP feedback, our study examined the validity and reliability of one potential instrument, the 'modified Quality of Simulated Patient Feedback Form' (mQSF).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Content validity of the mQSF was assessed by inviting experts in the area of simulated clinical encounters to rate the importance of the mQSF items. Moreover, generalizability theory was used to examine the reliability of the mQSF. Our data came from videotapes of clinical encounters between six simulated patients and six students and the ensuing feedback from the SPs to the students. Ten faculty members judged the SP feedback according to the items on the mQSF. Three weeks later, this procedure was repeated with the same faculty members and recordings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All but two items of the mQSF received importance ratings of > 2.5 on a four-point rating scale. A generalizability coefficient of 0.77 was established with two judges observing one encounter.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The findings for content validity and reliability with two judges suggest that the mQSF is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of feedback provided by simulated patients.</p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	BioMed Central
dc.relation	http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/6
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6920
dc.rights	CC BY
dc.source	BMC Medical Education, Vol 12, Iss 1, p 6 (2012)
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Validity evidence and reliability of a simulated patient feedback instrument
dc.type	Article