A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine.
A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6920-7-24
复制
发表时间：
2007-07-25
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Lilford, Richard J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hemmerdinger, Joanne M;Stoddart, Samuel D R;Lilford, Richard J
背景技术背景：同理心经常被认为是医生的一个重要属性，一些团体表示希望在选择医学院或医学（或研究生）培训期间测量同理心。为了做到这一点，需要一个可靠而有效的同理心测试。本系统评价的目的是确定现有的测试的可靠性和有效性的评估medical empathy.METHODS：一个系统的回顾研究论文有关的可靠性和有效性的移情测试在医学生和医生。期刊数据库（Medline，EMBASE和PsycINFO）进行了搜索，以英语为语言的文章有关的评估共情和相关结构的申请人医学院，医学生，和doctors.RESULTS：从1147引文，我们确定了50个相关的论文，描述了36个不同的仪器共情测量。由于一些论文评估了不止一种仪器，因此共有59种仪器评估。其中20个只涉及医科学生，30个只涉及执业临床医生，3个只涉及医学院申请人。四项评估涉及医学生和执业临床医生，两项研究涉及医学院申请人和学生。八个工具表现出的可靠性，内部一致性和有效性的证据。其中，六个自我评价的措施，一个是病人的评价措施，和一个是一个adverver-rated measurement.CONCLUSION：一些共情措施已进行了心理测量学评估医学生和执业医生之间的研究使用。没有共情措施，发现有足够的证据的预测效度作为选择措施，医学院。然而，有足够的证据基础的措施，以支持其使用的工具，调查移情在医疗培训和临床护理的作用是可用的。
BACKGROUND: Empathy is frequently cited as an important attribute in physicians and some groups have expressed a desire to measure empathy either at selection for medical school or during medical (or postgraduate) training. In order to do this, a reliable and valid test of empathy is required. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the reliability and validity of existing tests for the assessment of medical empathy.METHODS: A systematic review of research papers relating to the reliability and validity of tests of empathy in medical students and doctors. Journal databases (Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for English-language articles relating to the assessment of empathy and related constructs in applicants to medical school, medical students, and doctors.RESULTS: From 1147 citations, we identified 50 relevant papers describing 36 different instruments of empathy measurement. As some papers assessed more than one instrument, there were 59 instrument assessments. 20 of these involved only medical students, 30 involved only practising clinicians, and three involved only medical school applicants. Four assessments involved both medical students and practising clinicians, and two studies involved both medical school applicants and students. Eight instruments demonstrated evidence of reliability, internal consistency, and validity. Of these, six were self-rated measures, one was a patient-rated measure, and one was an observer-rated measure.CONCLUSION: A number of empathy measures available have been psychometrically assessed for research use among medical students and practising medical doctors. No empathy measures were found with sufficient evidence of predictive validity for use as selection measures for medical school. However, measures with a sufficient evidential base to support their use as tools for investigating the role of empathy in medical training and clinical care are available.