Assessment of a matched-pair instrument to examine doctor-patient communication skills in practising doctors
Assessment of a matched-pair instrument to examine doctor-patient communication skills in practising doctors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02657.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-02-01
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
MacLeod, Heather
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Campbell, Craig;Lockyer, Jocelyn;MacLeod, Heather
开发和心理测量评估的可行性，可靠性和有效性的评估工具，其中医生和病人的看法，发生在一个单一的办公室visit.METHODS两个19项（5点量表）的问卷调查，平行的内容，医生和病人完成后访问。过程和内容都受到质疑。招募了加拿大各地的家庭医生和专家，以提供25次访问的数据。我们通过检查招聘和“无法评估”每个项目的人的百分比来评估可行性。有效性的证据进行了检查，通过探索性因素分析，医生和病人的数据之间的相关性和线性回归。信度进行了评估，通过内部一致性信度和概化系数analysis.Results1845医患二对（91名医生）的数据显示同样高的评级（> 4/5）的医生和患者，与一些无法评估的项目。项目和问卷之间的相关性较低。主成分分析表明，过程和内容2个因素，分别占医生方差的52%和7%，占患者方差的60%和6%。线性回归显示，只有性别才能解释评级的任何差异。医生和患者问卷的Cronbach α均>= 0.96。G分析提供了一个G = 0.98和0.40（标准误为0.003和0.02）为医生和patients.CONCLUSIONS的数据表明，这是一个可行的工具，以评估沟通技巧，有证据表明其有效性和可靠性。
OBJECTIVES To develop and psychometrically assess the feasibility, reliability and validity of an assessment tool in which both doctor and patient perceptions of the communication that occurred in a single office visit are captured.METHODS Two 19-item (5-point scale) questionnaires, with parallel content, were developed for doctor and patient completion following a visit. Both process and content were queried. Family doctors and specialists across Canada were recruited to provide data from 25 visits. We assessed feasibility by examining recruitment and percentages of people 'unable to assess' each item. Evidence for validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis, the correlations between doctor and patient data and linear regression. Reliability was assessed through internal consistency reliability and generalisability coefficient analyses.RESULTS Data from 1845 doctor-patient dyads (91 doctors) showed similarly high ratings (> 4/5) for both doctors and patients, with few unable-to-assess items. There were low correlations between items and questionnaires. The principle components analysis indicated 2 factors, process and content, accounting for 52% and 7% of the doctor variance and 60% and 6% of the patient variance, respectively. The linear regression showed that only gender accounted for any of the variance in ratings. Cronbach's alphas for both doctor and patient questionnaires were >= 0.96. The G analysis provided a G = 0.98 and 0.40 (standard errors of 0.003 and 0.02) for doctors and patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONS The data suggest this is a feasible tool with which to assess communication skills and that there is evidence for its validity and reliability.