Discriminating Features of Narrative Evaluations of Communication Skills During an OSCE

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of assessors.

Assessor Characteristic	Number (%)
Gender
Male	8 (44.4)
Female	10 (55.6)
English Proficiency
Native English speaker	7 (38.8)
Non-native English speaker	11 (61.1)
Job Role
Faculty	9 (50)
Practicing Clinicians	6 (33.3)
Both	3 (16.7)
Highest Degree Obtained
Bachelor	1 (5.56)
Master	2 (11.1)
Doctor of Pharmacy	10 (55.6)
Doctor of Philosophy	4 (22.2)
Doctor Naturopathic Medicine	1 (5.56)
Years of Experience Assessing Communication Skills
< 5	12 (66.7)
5–10	4 (22.2)
> 10	2 (11.1)

Note: n = 18.

Table 2. Common linguistic strategies coded within narratives obtained from OSCE evaluations for good and poor performing students.

Category	Definition	Example	Poor Students	Good Students	Total
Total Comments			328	334	662
No Politeness	No politeness strategies	“Used lay language”	231 (70%)^a	278 (83%)^a	509 (77%)
Depersonalization	Does not directly refer to receiver using names, or other pronoun (i.e., she, he, him, her)	“Good eye contact, posture and clear voice tone” “Didn’t encourage questions”	230 (70%)	252 (75%)	482 (73%)
Hedging	A word or phrase used to modify the degree of membership in a set (i.e., lacking commitment to statements made)	“She was a bit rude when talking to the patient” “Could be more assertive and confident in response” “I felt she was not very self-confident when she was speaking to the patient”	97 (30%)^b	49 (15%)^b	146 (22%)

Note: n = nine stations; n = 18 assessors.

^a Chi-square test statistic =15.3, p < .001.

^b Chi-square test statistic =21.4, p < .001.