Communication assessment using the common ground instrument: psychometric properties.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent guidelines from the Association of American Medical Colleges and from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education strongly suggest that communications teaching and assessment be part of medical education at all levels. This study's objective was to validate an instrument to assess communications skills. This instrument, Common Ground, is linked to the core, generic communication skills emphasized by the consensus statements of Toronto and Kalamazoo. METHODS: A total of 100 medical students were recruited from two medical schools and tested with four-station, communications-focused objective structured clinical examinations. Using Common Ground, trained raters performed checklist and global rating assessments. Experts globally assessed 20 representative interviews. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for Common Ground was 0.85 for the overall global ratings and 0.92 for the overall checklist assessment. Generalizability coefficient was 0.80 for 50 minutes of testing. The correlation between the ratings of trained raters and a panel of communication experts was 0.84. CONCLUSIONS: The Common Ground assessment instrument assesses core communication skills with sufficient reliability, validity, and generalizablity to make decisions on medical students' performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".