Highlights
- •We investigated the influence of gender on the communication skills assessment.
- •The students performed better when interacting with female standardized patients.
- •Male students performed worse when interacting with male standardized patients.
- •Female standardized patients may be preferable to minimize gender effects.
- •The global rating scores may be preferable for the communication skills assessment.
Abstract
Background
Opinions on the interaction between the genders of standardized patients and examinees
are controversial. Our study sought to determine the influence of gender on communication
skills assessment in Eastern country.
Methods
We recruited year 5 medical students from a medical college in Taiwan. They were assigned
to obtain informed consent from either male or female age-matched standardized patients.
Their performance was rated by standardized checklist rating scores and global rating
scores. Either male or female examiners rated their performance.
Results
A total of 253 medical students (166 male students and 87 female students) were recruited.
The checklist rating scores for students interacting with male standardized patients
were significantly lower than the scores for interactions with female standardized
patients (male examiners, P = 0.006; female examiners, P = 0.001). For male students, the checklist rating scores were significantly lower for
male standardized patients than for female standardized patients (male examiners,
P = 0.006; female examiners, P = 0.008). For male standardized patients, male students had significantly lower checklist
rating scores than female students when rated by male examiners (P = 0.044). The global rating scores were similar except when female students interacted
with male and female SPs and when rated by female examiners (P = 0.004).
Conclusion
The gender of standardized patients influences communication skills assessment. In
terms of checklist rating scores, female standardized patients seem preferable to
minimize potential gender effects. In the best interest of students, global rating
score may be preferable to checklist rating score, especially for male examinees.
Abbreviations:
ANOVA (Analysis of variance), OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Exam), SP (Standardized patient)Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to European Journal of Internal MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance.Med. Educ. 2002; 36: 901-909
- Disclosing a diagnosis of cancer: where and how does it occur?.J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28: 3630-3635
- Patient complaints about physician behaviors: a qualitative study.Acad. Med. 2004; 79: 134-138
- UK Council for Clinical Communication in Undergraduate Medical Education: National survey of clinical communication assessment in medical education in the United Kingdom (UK).BMC Med. Educ. 2014; 14: 10
- The interaction of student gender and standardized-patient gender on a performance-based examination of clinical competence.Acad. Med. 1991; 66: S31-S33
- Effects of examinee gender, standardized-patient gender, and their interaction on standardized patients' ratings of examinees' interpersonal and communication skills.Acad. Med. 1993; 68: 153-157
- Gender, sequence of cases and day effects on clinical skills assessment with standardized patients.Med. Educ. 1999; 33: 499-503
- The influences of student and standardized patient genders on scoring in an objective structured clinical examination.Acad. Med. 1991; 66: S28-S30
- Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review.JAMA. 2002; 288: 756-764
- Assessing the communication and interpersonal skills of graduates of international medical schools as part of the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) Exam.Acad. Med. 2007; 82: S65-S68
- Gender differences in the results of the final medical examination at University College Dublin.Med. Educ. 2000; 34: 30-34
- Does the gender of the standardised patient influence candidate performance in an objective structured clinical examination?.Med. Educ. 2009; 43: 521-525
- Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature.Patient Educ. Couns. 2006; 64: 21-34
- Impact of student ethnicity and patient-centredness on communication skills performance.Med. Educ. 2010; 44: 653-661
- Effect of medical students' ethnicity on their attitudes towards consultation skills and final year examination performance.Med. Educ. 2004; 38: 187-198
- Sex differences in self disclosure: a meta-analysis.Psychol. Bull. 1992; 112: 106-124
- Patient-centeredness and its correlates among first year medical students.Int. J. Psychiatry Med. 1999; 29: 347-356
- Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination.Acad. Med. 1998; 73: 993-997
- A feasibility study comparing checklists and global rating forms to assess resident performance in clinical skills.Med. Teach. 2003; 25: 654-658
- A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment.Med. Educ. 2015; 49: 161-173
- Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope.BMJ. 1994; 309: 184-188
- Bioethics for clinicians: 20. Chinese bioethics.CMAJ. 2000; 163: 1481-1485
- How should doctors approach patients? A Confucian reflection on personhood.J. Med. Ethics. 2001; 27: 44-50
- The bioethical principles and Confucius' moral philosophy.J. Med. Ethics. 2005; 31: 159-163
- The ongoing westernization of East Asian biomedical ethics in Taiwan.Soc. Sci. Med. 2013; 78: 125-129
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 06, 2015
Accepted:
June 27,
2015
Received in revised form:
May 12,
2015
Received:
January 7,
2015
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
