加普-卡拉马祖沟通技能评估表在职业疗法中的可靠性

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION British Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1177/03080226241239574
Shih-Chen Fan, Shao-Tong Tsai, Yi-Ching Wang, Meng-Lin Lee, Sheau-Ling Huang, Ching-Lin Hsieh
{"title":"加普-卡拉马祖沟通技能评估表在职业疗法中的可靠性","authors":"Shih-Chen Fan, Shao-Tong Tsai, Yi-Ching Wang, Meng-Lin Lee, Sheau-Ling Huang, Ching-Lin Hsieh","doi":"10.1177/03080226241239574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Gap–Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Form (GKCSAF) is widely used in medical education, yet its reliability in real occupational therapy clinical settings remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, as well as random measurement error, of the GKCSAF in occupational therapy. Five independent raters evaluated audio-recordings and transcripts of conversations involving 30 patients treated by 22 assessors (7 therapists and 15 students). Both direct and coded ratings were used. For direct ratings, intra-rater reliability was moderate for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.76), but poor for inter-rater (ICC = 0.31). minimal detectable change (MDC%) was acceptable for the same rater (17.8%) but not for different raters (38.3%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.01 to 0.34) for each domain score. Coded ratings showed moderate intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.69) and poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.22). MDC% was acceptable for the same rater (24.8%) but not for different raters (65.5%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.02 to 0.33) for each domain score. GKCSAF displays acceptable intra-rater but poor inter-rater reliability in occupational therapy clinical scenarios. Multiple raters are advised for enhanced reliability, while coding might not significantly enhance it. It is advisable to use the GKCSAF cautiously in occupational therapy education, ensuring adequate training, and possibly incorporating multiple raters for assessment consistency.","PeriodicalId":49096,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the Gap–Kalamazoo communication skills assessment form in occupational therapy\",\"authors\":\"Shih-Chen Fan, Shao-Tong Tsai, Yi-Ching Wang, Meng-Lin Lee, Sheau-Ling Huang, Ching-Lin Hsieh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03080226241239574\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Gap–Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Form (GKCSAF) is widely used in medical education, yet its reliability in real occupational therapy clinical settings remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, as well as random measurement error, of the GKCSAF in occupational therapy. Five independent raters evaluated audio-recordings and transcripts of conversations involving 30 patients treated by 22 assessors (7 therapists and 15 students). Both direct and coded ratings were used. For direct ratings, intra-rater reliability was moderate for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.76), but poor for inter-rater (ICC = 0.31). minimal detectable change (MDC%) was acceptable for the same rater (17.8%) but not for different raters (38.3%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.01 to 0.34) for each domain score. Coded ratings showed moderate intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.69) and poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.22). MDC% was acceptable for the same rater (24.8%) but not for different raters (65.5%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.02 to 0.33) for each domain score. GKCSAF displays acceptable intra-rater but poor inter-rater reliability in occupational therapy clinical scenarios. Multiple raters are advised for enhanced reliability, while coding might not significantly enhance it. It is advisable to use the GKCSAF cautiously in occupational therapy education, ensuring adequate training, and possibly incorporating multiple raters for assessment consistency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226241239574\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226241239574","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

盖普-卡拉马祖沟通技能评估表(GKCSAF)被广泛应用于医学教育,但其在实际职业治疗临床环境中的可靠性仍有待探索。本研究旨在评估 GKCSAF 在职业治疗中的评分者内部和评分者之间的可靠性以及随机测量误差。五名独立评分员对 22 名评估员(7 名治疗师和 15 名学生)所治疗的 30 名患者的对话录音和记录誊本进行了评估。采用了直接评分和编码评分两种方法。对于直接评分,评分者内部总分的可靠性为中等(类内相关系数 (ICC) = 0.76),但评分者之间的可靠性较差(ICC = 0.31)。同一评分者的最小可检测变化 (MDC%) 可接受(17.8%),但不同评分者的最小可检测变化 (MDC%) 不可接受(38.3%)。加权卡帕值显示,每个领域得分的可靠性从较差到一般(-0.01 到 0.34)不等。编码评分显示出中等的评分者内部可靠性(ICC = 0.69)和较差的评分者之间可靠性(ICC = 0.22)。同一评分者的 MDC% 可接受(24.8%),但不同评分者的 MDC% 不可接受(65.5%)。加权卡帕值显示每个领域得分的可靠性从较差到一般(-0.02 到 0.33)。在职业治疗临床场景中,GKCSAF 的评分者内部信度尚可,但评分者之间的信度较差。建议使用多个评分者来提高信度,而编码可能不会显著提高信度。建议在职业治疗教育中谨慎使用 GKCSAF,确保充分的培训,并在可能的情况下纳入多个评分者,以提高评估的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of the Gap–Kalamazoo communication skills assessment form in occupational therapy
The Gap–Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Form (GKCSAF) is widely used in medical education, yet its reliability in real occupational therapy clinical settings remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, as well as random measurement error, of the GKCSAF in occupational therapy. Five independent raters evaluated audio-recordings and transcripts of conversations involving 30 patients treated by 22 assessors (7 therapists and 15 students). Both direct and coded ratings were used. For direct ratings, intra-rater reliability was moderate for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.76), but poor for inter-rater (ICC = 0.31). minimal detectable change (MDC%) was acceptable for the same rater (17.8%) but not for different raters (38.3%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.01 to 0.34) for each domain score. Coded ratings showed moderate intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.69) and poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.22). MDC% was acceptable for the same rater (24.8%) but not for different raters (65.5%). Weighted kappa values indicated poor to fair reliability (−0.02 to 0.33) for each domain score. GKCSAF displays acceptable intra-rater but poor inter-rater reliability in occupational therapy clinical scenarios. Multiple raters are advised for enhanced reliability, while coding might not significantly enhance it. It is advisable to use the GKCSAF cautiously in occupational therapy education, ensuring adequate training, and possibly incorporating multiple raters for assessment consistency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT) is the official journal of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. Its purpose is to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge in research, practice, education, and management in occupational therapy. It is a monthly peer reviewed publication that disseminates evidence on the effectiveness, benefit, and value of occupational therapy so that occupational therapists, service users, and key stakeholders can make informed decisions. BJOT publishes research articles, reviews, practice analyses, opinion pieces, editorials, letters to the editor and book reviews. It also regularly publishes special issues on topics relevant to occupational therapy.
期刊最新文献
Daily living skills in adolescents with and without language disorder, measured using the WHEEL OF INDEPENDENCETM framework Class of international functioning disability and health core sets for autism spectrum disorder: Occupational therapists’ perspective Exploring the usefulness of real-time digitally supported fatigue monitoring in fatigue management: Perspectives from occupational therapists and brain injury survivors Mindset and participation: Correlations among healthy children Exploration of collaborative goal setting in occupational therapy for adults with aphasia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1