Scholl I, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Sepucha K, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Härter M and Dirmaier J Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen Volume 105, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 313-324.
In the last few years, the approach of shared decision-making (SDM) has gained in importance in many countries. As the concern is with a relatively young research area, new measurement instruments to assess SDM (decision-making process, outcome and associated constructs) are being developed on an ongoing basis. The goal of this study was to develop a structured overview of new developments in the area of measuring SDM, to give an outline of known scales and to provide an outlook regarding new developments. An electronic literature search and a manual search were conducted. Additionally, international experts from the research area were surveyed. Eight known instruments were found, which were subjected to further psychometric analyses, as well as eleven new scales and nine unpublished articles regarding measurement instruments. The results show a development in the direction of increased “dyadic measurement” (assessment of perspectives of physician and patient) of the SDM process. The international relevance of SDM can be discerned through the increased development of non-English scales. The majority of the instruments show good reliability but differ in terms of the efforts to validate them. Further studies are necessary to test most of the scales in psychometric terms. Moreover, the development of a theoretical framework concept for SDM measurements is called for in order to standardise the measurement of the different relevant constructs.
Sepucha KR, Scholl I. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:00-. Epub 27 May 2014.
Zill JM, Christalle E, Müller E, Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 22;9(12):e112637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112637. eCollection 2014.
Background: Effective communication with health care providers has been found as relevant for physical and psychological health outcomes as well as the patients' adherence. However, the validity of the findings depends on the quality of the applied measures. This study aimed to provide an overview of measures of physician-patient communication and to evaluate the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified measures.
Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify psychometrically tested instruments which measure physician-patient communication. The search strategy included three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed), reference and citation tracking and personal knowledge. Studies that report the psychometric properties of physician-patient communication measures were included. Two independent raters assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies with the COSMIN (COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INtruments) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated with the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues.
Results: Data of 25 studies on 20 measures of physician-patient communication were extracted, mainly from primary care samples in Europe and the USA. Included studies reported a median of 3 out of the nine COSMIN criteria. Scores for internal consistency and content validity were mainly fair or poor. Reliability and structural validity were rated mainly of fair quality. Hypothesis testing scored mostly poor. The quality of psychometric properties of measures evaluated with Terwee et al.'s criteria was rated mainly intermediate or positive.
Discussion: This systematic review identified a number of measures of physician-patient communication. However, further psychometric evaluation of the measures is strongly recommended. The application of quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist could improve the methodological quality of psychometric property studies as well as the comparability of the studies' results.
Müller E, Zill JM, Dirmaier J, Härter M, Scholl I. PLoS One. 2014 Sep 10;9(9):e106844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106844. eCollection 2014.
Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee's 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures' psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.
Cömert M, Zill JM, Christalle E, Dirmaier J, Härter M, Scholl I. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 31;11(3):e0152717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152717. eCollection 2016.
Background: Teaching and assessment of communication skills have become essential in medical education. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been found as an appropriate means to assess communication skills within medical education. Studies have demonstrated the importance of a valid assessment of medical students' communication skills. Yet, the validity of the performance scores depends fundamentally on the quality of the rating scales used in an OSCE. Thus, this systematic review aimed at providing an overview of existing rating scales, describing their underlying definition of communication skills, determining the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified rating scales.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify psychometrically tested rating scales, which have been applied in OSCE settings to assess communication skills of medical students. Our search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed), reference tracking and consultation of experts. We included studies that reported psychometric properties of communication skills assessment rating scales used in OSCEs by examiners only. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated using the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues.
Results: Data of twelve studies reporting on eight rating scales on communication skills assessment in OSCEs were included. Five of eight rating scales were explicitly developed based on a specific definition of communication skills. The methodological quality of studies was mainly poor. The psychometric quality of the eight rating scales was mainly intermediate.
Discussion: Our results reveal that future psychometric evaluation studies focusing on improving the methodological quality are needed in order to yield psychometrically sound results of the OSCEs assessing communication skills. This is especially important given that most OSCE rating scales are used for summative assessment, and thus have an impact on medical students' academic success.