![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.jpg)
Who Should Assess Trainees for Interpreter Use Skills?
Monday, September 22, 2008: 1:00 PM-7:30 PM, Minn Marriott, 4th Floor - Atrium
Who Should Assess Medical Students for Interpreter Use Skills? A Validation Study
Desiree Lie, MD, MSEd, Sylvia Bereknyei, MS, Clarence H. Braddock III, MD, MPH, Jennifer Encinas, BA, Susan Ahearn, RN and John Boker, PhD
University of California , Irvine, Stanford University School of Medicine and Geisinger Health System
Abstract
Background: Encounters involving interpreters require a distinct subset of communication skills. Learner assessment methods are needed.
Objective: Describe reliability and validity of 3 measures of interpreter use skill; correlate each measure with the others and the validated patient-physician interaction (PPI) scale; describe potential use in practice.
Method: Two cohorts (n=178) of students from 2 schools had their skill in a standardized case assessed by a standardized patient (SP), a standardized interpreter (SI) and a trained observer using three measures: the Interpreter Interaction Rating Scale (IIRS) by in-room SP; the Interpreter Scale (IS) by in-room SI; and the Faculty Observer Rating Scale (FORS) by trained observers viewing DVDs. The SP completed a PPI rating scale.
Analysis: We examined performance of the IIRS, IS and FORS through principle component analysis. We calculated Cronbach’s α for internal consistency reliability for each measure. We conducted inter-item analysis, calculating Pearson’s r to assess correlation of the scales with one another and with the PPI.
Results: IS items loaded onto two factors; Factor 1, IS5 to 13 (76% of the variance) we labeled “managing the encounter”; Factor 2, IS1 to 4 (15% of the variance) we labeled “setting the stage.” The IIRS and FORS loaded onto one factor each. Cronbach’s α were 0.86 (IIRS), 0.77 (IS factor1) and 0.78 (FORS). The IIRS correlated highly with the PPI (ã=0.90). The IS and FORS did not correlate with the IIRS or the PPI. The global items IS13, IIRS7 and FORS13 showed moderate correlation with IS factor 1 (ã=0.61, 0.38 and 0.34 respectively).
Conclusions: The IIRS, IS and FORS each have construct validity and reliability, as measured by high internal consistency reliability. The 3 measures’ global items may be used summatively while individual items are useful for formative feedback. Validation of the IS in clinical encounters is suggested.
Abstract word count: 299
Desiree Lie, MD, MSEd, Sylvia Bereknyei, MS, Clarence H. Braddock III, MD, MPH, Jennifer Encinas, BA, Susan Ahearn, RN and John Boker, PhD
Abstract
Background: Encounters involving interpreters require a distinct subset of communication skills. Learner assessment methods are needed.
Objective: Describe reliability and validity of 3 measures of interpreter use skill; correlate each measure with the others and the validated patient-physician interaction (PPI) scale; describe potential use in practice.
Method: Two cohorts (n=178) of students from 2 schools had their skill in a standardized case assessed by a standardized patient (SP), a standardized interpreter (SI) and a trained observer using three measures: the Interpreter Interaction Rating Scale (IIRS) by in-room SP; the Interpreter Scale (IS) by in-room SI; and the Faculty Observer Rating Scale (FORS) by trained observers viewing DVDs. The SP completed a PPI rating scale.
Analysis: We examined performance of the IIRS, IS and FORS through principle component analysis. We calculated Cronbach’s α for internal consistency reliability for each measure. We conducted inter-item analysis, calculating Pearson’s r to assess correlation of the scales with one another and with the PPI.
Results: IS items loaded onto two factors; Factor 1, IS5 to 13 (76% of the variance) we labeled “managing the encounter”; Factor 2, IS1 to 4 (15% of the variance) we labeled “setting the stage.” The IIRS and FORS loaded onto one factor each. Cronbach’s α were 0.86 (IIRS), 0.77 (IS factor1) and 0.78 (FORS). The IIRS correlated highly with the PPI (ã=0.90). The IS and FORS did not correlate with the IIRS or the PPI. The global items IS13, IIRS7 and FORS13 showed moderate correlation with IS factor 1 (ã=0.61, 0.38 and 0.34 respectively).
Conclusions: The IIRS, IS and FORS each have construct validity and reliability, as measured by high internal consistency reliability. The 3 measures’ global items may be used summatively while individual items are useful for formative feedback. Validation of the IS in clinical encounters is suggested.
Abstract word count: 299
Presentation Information:
Program: Poster PresentationsPrimary Category: Language Access
Subtopics: Clinical interactions, Curricula development, Assessing learning/performance on cultural competence/disparity reduction, Disparity reduction, Implementing the CLAS standards or other cultural competence frameworks, Interpreter services—development and management, Interpreter practice—skills, day-to-day issues, Program/intervention evaluations, Standards (performance, organizational)
Region Addressed by Presentation: National
Organization: Health Professions School
Population/Demographic: Limited English proficiency
Keywords: Interpreting, Trainee education, Cultural competence, Assessment, Limted English proficiency encounters