Psychometric Properties of the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale in University Students of Health Sciences
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design, Setting and Sample
2.2. Measures
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic Data
3.2. Performance of the Scale and Psychometrics Proprieties
3.3. Descriptive Statistics for Communication Skills
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-Centered Care: A Definition and Essential Elements. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2016, 64, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tudela, P.; Mòdol, J.M. On hospital emergency department crowding. Emergencias 2015, 27, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sanjuan-Quiles, A.; Hernández-Ramón, M.P.; Juliá-Sanchis, R.; García-Aracil, N.; Castejón-de la Encina, M.E.; Perpiñá-Galvañ, J. Handover of patients from prehospital emergency services to emergency departments. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2019, 34, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Flin, R.; O’Conner, P.; Crichton, M. Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-Technical Skills; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Pires, S.; Monteiro, S.; Pereira, A.; Chaló, D.; Melo, E.; Rodrigues, A. Non-technical skills assessment for prelicensure nursing students: An integrative review. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 58, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sánchez Expósito, J.; Leal Costa, C.; JDíaz Agea, J.L.; Carrillo Izquierdo, M.D.; Jiménez Rodríguez, D. Ensuring relational competency in critical care: Importance of nursing students’ communication skills. Intensiv. Crit. Care Nurs. 2018, 44, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramhall, E. Effective communication skills in nursing practice. Nurs. Stand. 2014, 29, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bridges, J.; Nicholson, C.; Maben, J.; Pope, C.; Flatley, M.; Wilkinson, C.; Meyer, J.; Tziggili, M. Capacity for care: Meta-ethnography of acute care nurses’ experiences of the nurse-patient relationship. J. Adv. Nurs. 2013, 69, 760–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Health. Compassion in Practice Nursing, Midwifery and Care Staff Our Vision and Strategy; National Health Service: London, UK, 2012.
- Ghiyasvandian, S.; Zakerimoghadam, M.; Peyravi, H. Nurse as a facilitator to professional communication: A qualitative study. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2014, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ammentorp, J.; Graugaard, L.T.; Lau, M.E.; Andersen, T.P.; Waidtløw, K.; Kofoed, P.E. Mandatory communication training of all employees with patient contact. Patient Educ. Couns. 2014, 95, 429–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boissy, A.; Windover, A.K.; Bokar, D.; Karafa, M.; Neuendorf, K.; Frankel, R.M.; Merlino, J.; Rothberg, M.B. Communication Skills Training for Physicians Improves Patient Satisfaction. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2016, 31, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Sands, D.Z.; Schneider, J.D. Quantifying the economic impact of communication inefficiencies in US hospitals. J. Healthc. Manag. 2010, 55, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arnold, R.M.; Back, A.L.; Barnato, A.E.; Prendergast, T.J.; Emlet, L.L.; Karpov, I.; White, P.H.; Nelson, J.E. The Critical Care Communication project: Improving fellows’ communication skills. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Europe Commission. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, 48, 22–142. [Google Scholar]
- Tejada Fernández, T.; Ruiz Bueno, C. Evaluación de competencias profesionales en educación superior: Retos e implicaciones [Evaluation of professional competences in Higher Education: Challenges and implications]. Educ. XX1 2015, 19, 13–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martínez, M. Un camino innovador construido por los docentes de las universidades: Una visión analítica [An innovative path built by university professors: An analytical vision], in: Docencia universitaria e innovación. In Evolución y Retos a Través de los CIDUI. [University Teaching and Innovation. Evolution and Challenges through the CIDUI]; Octaedro: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Teruel, D.; Robles-Bello, M.A.; González-Cabrera, M. Competencias sociales en estudiantes universitarios de Ciencias de la Salud (España) [Social skills in university students studying Health Sciences (Spain)]. Educ. Medica 2015, 16, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baghcheghi, N.; Koohestani, H.R.; Rezaei, K. A comparison of the cooperative learning and traditional learning methods in theory classes on nursing students’ communication skill with patients at clinical settings. Nurse Educ. Today 2011, 31, 877–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cömert, M.; Zill, J.M.; Christalle, E.; Dirmaier, J.; Härter, M.; Scholl, I. Assessing communication skills of medical students in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE)—A systematic review of rating scales. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leal-Costa, C.; Tirado-González, S.; Rodríguez-Marín, J.; vander-Hofstadt-Román, C.J. Psychometric properties of the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale (HP-CSS). Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2016, 16, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez Expósito, J.; Leal Costa, C.; Díaz Agea, J.L.; Carrillo Izquierdo, M.D.; Jiménez Rodríguez, D. Socio-emotional competencies as predictors of performance of nursing students in simulated clinical practice. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2018, 32, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acquadro, C.; Conway, K.; Girourdet, C.; Mear, I. Linguistic Validation Manual for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments; MAPI Research Institute: Lyon, France, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carretero-Dios, H.; Pérez, C. Standards for the development and review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test selection in psychological research. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2007, 7, 863–882. [Google Scholar]
- Torsheim, T.; Cavallo, F.; Levin, K.A.; Schnohr, C.; Mazur, J.; Niclasen, B.; Currie, C. Psychometric validation of the revised family affluence scale: A latent variable approach. Child Indic. Res. 2016, 9, 771–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Langille, D.B.; Kaufman, D.M.; Laidlaw, T.A.; Sargeant, J.; Macleod, H. Faculty attitudes towards medical communication and their perceptions of students’ communication skills training at Dalhousie University. Med. Educ. 2001, 35, 548–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leal, C.; Tirado, S.; Rodríguez-Marín, J.; Van-der Hofstadt, C.J. Creación de la Escala sobre Habilidades de Comunicación en Profesionales de la Salud, EHC-PS [Creation of the communication skills scale in health professionals, CSS-HP]. An. Psicol. 2015, 32, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Monte, P.R. Factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS) among Spanish professionals. Rev. Saúde Pública 2005, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 20 January 2019. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/.
- Lloret-Segura, S.; Ferreres-Traver, A.; Hernández-Baeza, A.; Tomás-Marco, I. Exploratory item factor analysis: A practical guide revised and updated. An. Psicol. 2014, 30, 1151–11692. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, C.R.; Harris, K.; Dawson, J.; Beard, D.J.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Price, A.J. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: An analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e007765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rhemtulla, M.; Brosseau-Liard, P.É.; Savalei, V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol. Methods 2012, 17, 354–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Beauducel, A.; Herzberg, P.Y. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct. Equ. Model. 2006, 13, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, S.B.; Yang, Y. Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika 2009, 74, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Green, S.B. Evaluation of structural equation modeling estimates of reliability for scales with ordered categorical items. Methodology 2015, 11, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viladrich, C.; Angulo-Brunet, A.; Doval, E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 755–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leal-Costa, C.; Tirado-González, S.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J.; Díaz-Agea, J.L.; Ruzafa-Martínez, M.; vander-Hofstadt, C.J. Validation of the communication skills scale in nursing professionals. An. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2019, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peña-Calero, B.N. Una Guía Amigable Para el uso de Lavaan: Potencia de R Para el Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio (SEM) [A User-Friendly Guide to the Use of Lavaan: R-Power for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (SEM)]; GitHub: San Francisco, CA, USA, 20 January 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batista-Foguet, J.M.; Coenders, G.; Alonso, J. Confirmatory factor analysis. Its role on the validation of health related questionnaires. Med. Clin. 2004, 122, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, R.A.; Yang, Y.; Beitra, D.; McCaffrey, S. Comparing fit and reliability estimates of a psychological instrument using second-order CFA, bifactor, and essentially tau-equivalent (coefficient alpha) Models via AMOS 22. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2015, 33, 451–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Green, S.B. Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2011, 29, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update, 4th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mokkink, L.; de Vet, H.C.W.; Prinsen, C.A.C.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Bouter, L.M.; Terwee, C.B. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018, 27, 1171–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gu, F.; Little, T.D.; Kingston, N.M. Misestimation of reliability using coefficient alpha and structural equation modeling when assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated errors are violated. Methodology 2013, 9, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godin, G.; Bélanger-Gravel, A.; Eccles, M.; Grimshaw, J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement. Sci. 2008, 3, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kortteisto, T.; Kaila, M.; Komulainen, J.; Mäntyranta, T.; Rissanen, P. Healthcare professionals’ intentions to use clinical guidelines: A survey using the theory of planned behaviour. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hsu, L.L.; Huang, Y.H.; Hsieh, S.I. The effects of scenario-based communication training on nurses’ communication competence and self-efficacy and myocardial infarction knowledge. Patient Educ. Couns. 2014, 95, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, J.; Moya, S. Evaluation of skills and learning outcomes in skills and abilities in students of Posiatry Degree at the University of Barcelona. Educ. Med. 2020, 21, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Min | Max | M (SD) | Skewness | Kurtosis | Floor Effect n (%) | Ceiling Effect n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item 1 | 3 | 6 | 5.73 (0.50) | −1.84 | 3.52 | 1 (0.34) | 220 (75.60) |
Item 2 | 1 | 6 | 4.65 (1) | −0.52 | 0.33 | 2 (0.69) | 62 (21.31) |
Item 3 | 3 | 6 | 5.61 (0.61) | −1.38 | 1.23 | 1 (0.34) | 195 (67.01) |
Item 4 | 3 | 6 | 5.69 (0.52) | −1.52 | 2.25 | 1 (0.35) | 207 (71.13) |
Item 5 | 3 | 6 | 5.29 (0.72) | −0.66 | −0.27 | 3 (1.03) | 127 (43.64) |
Item 6 | 2 | 6 | 5.40 (0.82) | −1.50 | 2.20 | 2 (0.69) | 163 (56.01) |
Item 7 | 1 | 6 | 4.24 (1.04) | −0.27 | −0.15 | 2 (0.69) | 32 (10.99) |
Item 8 | 2 | 6 | 4.76 (0.96) | −0.56 | −0.11 | 5 (1.72) | 67 (23.02) |
Item 9 | 3 | 6 | 5.44 (0.69) | −1.13 | 1.16 | 5 (1.72) | 155 (53.26) |
Item 10 | 1 | 6 | 3.74 (1.17) | −0.38 | −0.30 | 12 (4.12) | 12 (4.12) |
Item 11 | 2 | 6 | 4.97 (0.98) | −0.79 | 0.14 | 5 (1.72) | 101 (34.71) |
Item 12 | 2 | 6 | 5.35 (0.80) | −1.23 | 1.52 | 5 (0.69) | 151 (51.89) |
Item 13 | 1 | 6 | 4.59 (0.99) | −0.47 | −0.02 | 1 (0.34) | 52 (17.89) |
Item 14 | 4 | 6 | 5.87 (0.36 | −2.57 | 5.91 | 2 (0.69) | 254 (87.29) |
Item 15 | 3 | 6 | 5.61 (0.57) | −1.26 | 1.18 | 1 (0.34) | 190 (65.29) |
Item 16 | 1 | 6 | 3.74 (1.36) | −0.10 | −1.06 | 10 (3.44) | 25 (8.59) |
Item 17 | 2 | 6 | 5.14 (0.83) | −0.78 | 0.29 | 1 (0.34) | 110 (37.80) |
Item 18 | 1 | 6 | 4.15 (1.33) | −0.35 | −0.99 | 3 (1.03) | 45 (15.43) |
Fitted Model | Chi-Square | df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA [95% CI] | Nonlinear Reliability a | Ordinal Alpha a | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TM | 805.719 | 146 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.13 (0.12–0.13) | - | ||
CM | 461.644 | 131 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.09 (0.08–0.10) | - | ||
Total scale | CE | 220.613 | 130 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.05 (0.04–0.06) | 0.88 * | 0.89 * |
Empathy | CE | - | - | - | - | - | 0.83 | 0.83 * |
Informative communication | CE | - | - | - | - | - | 0.64 | 0.71 * |
Respect | CE | - | - | - | - | - | 0.72 | 0.81 * |
Social skill | CE | - | - | - | - | - | 0.62 | 0.59 * |
E | IC | R | A | Total | Attitudes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E | 1 | |||||
IC | 0.55 ** | 1 | ||||
R | 0.56 ** | 0.41 ** | 1 | |||
A | 0.44 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.29 ** | 1 | ||
Total | 0.82 ** | 0.84 ** | 0.63 ** | 0.79 ** | 1 | |
Attitudes | 0.38 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.18 * | 0.35 ** | 1 |
Mean (SD) | Transformed Score | Range | P25 | P75 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Empathy | 26.05 (3.01) | 5.21 (0.6) | 5–30 | 18 | 32 |
Informative communication | 30.66 (2.86) | 5.11 (0.48) | 6–36 | 28 | 32 |
Respect | 16.96 (1.31) | 5.65 (0.44) | 3–18 | 16 | 18 |
Social skill/Assertiveness | 16.34 (3.01) | 4.09 (0.73) | 4–24 | 15 | 19 |
Total | 90.00 (8.04) | 5.00 (0.45) | 18–108 | 85 | 96 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Juliá-Sanchis, R.; Cabañero-Martínez, M.J.; Leal-Costa, C.; Fernández-Alcántara, M.; Escribano, S. Psychometric Properties of the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale in University Students of Health Sciences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207565
Juliá-Sanchis R, Cabañero-Martínez MJ, Leal-Costa C, Fernández-Alcántara M, Escribano S. Psychometric Properties of the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale in University Students of Health Sciences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(20):7565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207565
Chicago/Turabian StyleJuliá-Sanchis, Rocío, María José Cabañero-Martínez, César Leal-Costa, Manuel Fernández-Alcántara, and Silvia Escribano. 2020. "Psychometric Properties of the Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale in University Students of Health Sciences" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 20: 7565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207565