Development and pilot testing the Family Conference Rating Scale: A tool aimed to assess interprofessional patient-centred communication and collaboration competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of evidence-based literature on the essential communication and collaboration skills to guide health care teams in conducting and assessing their performance in the Family Conference (FC). The authors developed and collected validity evidence for a rating scale of team FC performance, the Family Conference Rating Scale (FCRS). In phase 1, essential FC communication and collaboration skills were identified through a review of existing communication tools and literature on team functioning; a draft 34-item scale was developed. In phase 2, the scale was narrowed to a 6-category, 9-point scale with descriptors of expected behaviours through an iterative process: testing of the scale on 10 FC transcripts by two experts, soliciting feedback from a focus group of seven health care providers, and testing by non-experts on 49 live FCs. In phase 3, scores on the revised scale were validated by 10 health care providers from different disciplines by rating three videos of FCs of variable quality. Raters were able to detect inter-video variation in FC quality. The reliability of the FCRS was 0.95 and the inter-rater reliability, 0.68. The FCRS may enhance the ability of health professions educators to teach and assess interprofessional patient-centred communication and collaboration competencies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".