PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

T Imbos

Publications and source records attributed to T Imbos.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable than good theory.

In nursing research many concepts are measured by questionnaires. Respondents are asked to respond to a set of related statements or questions. In unidimensional scaling these statements or questions are indicants of the same concept. Scaling means to assign numbers to respondents, according to their position on the continuum underlying the concept. It is very common to use the summative Likert scaling procedure. The sumscore of the responses to the items is the estimator of the position of the patient on the continuum. The rationale behind this procedure is classical test theory. The main assumption in this theory is that all items are parallel instruments. The Rasch model offers an alternative scaling procedure. With Rasch both respondents and items are scaled on the same continuum. Whereas in Likert scaling all items have the same weight in the summating procedure, in the Rasch model items are differentiated from each other by 'difficulty'. The model holds that the probability of a positive response to an item is dependent on the difference between the difficulty of the item and the value of the person on the latent trait. The rationale behind this procedure is item response theory. In this paper both scaling procedures and their rationales are discussed.

Bias

To what extent are medical interviewing skills teachable?

Growth patterns of medical interviewing skills during a 6-year undergraduate curriculum are assessed by studying 563 medical students taken from five year-groups, interviewing simulated patients. In a cross-sectional, quasi-experimental design their skills are rated by means of the Maastricht History-taking and Advice Checklist (MAAS), an observation instrument which measures five categories of interviewing skills pertaining to initial medical consultations. The findings suggest that the skills for 'history-taking', 'presenting solutions' and 'structuring of the interview' are effectively learned. These learning effects result from a continuous small group teaching program with expert and peer review of videotaped encounters with simulated patients. The teaching effects of this program seem less for the skills pertinent to the phase of 'exploring the reasons for encounter' and to the 'basic interviewing skills', because the students' growing medical knowledge and the increasing ability to solve medical problems exert a counteracting influence on the acquisition of these easily deteriorating skills. The results might be helpful to curriculum planners in order to make their programs for medical interviewing skills more effective.

Cross-Sectional Studies