What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine differences in communication skills assessment scores and reliability over time among medical students.

March 21, 2026Open Access

A longitudinal evaluation of faculty and simulated participant communication

Key Points

To examine differences in communication skills assessment scores and reliability over time among medical students.
203 medical students completed 24 scenarios across three years.
Linear mixed-effects models analyzed evaluator differences, time trends, and demographics.
Data collected included scores from faculty and simulated participants.
Simulated participants scored lower than faculty but differences decreased over time (p < .0001).
Gender and race were significant predictors of scores; female and White students received higher ratings (p < .001).
Instrument reliability was strong with Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 for faculty and 0.88 for SP.

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based assessments use faculty and simulated participants (SPs) to evaluate communication skills, offering distinct perspectives.Purpose: To examine longitudinal differences in Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment-Adapted (KCSK) scores and instrument reliability.Methods: A total of 203 medical students completed 24 scenarios over three years.Linear mixed-effects models assessed evaluator differences, time trends, and demographics.Results: SPs scored lower than faculty, with differences narrowing over time ( p < .00 01).Gender and race predicted scores; female and White students' communication was rated higher ( p < .001).Reliability was strong (Cronbach's : faculty = 0.83; SP = 0.88); SP-faculty agreement was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.71).Conclusion: Multisource feedback captures complementary dimensions of communication competence.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper