Faculty and Students' Self-Assessment of Client Communication Skills and Professional Ethics in Three Veterinary Medical Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Client communication skills and professional ethics are areas that have received much attention in veterinary education in recent years. The objectives of this study were to: i) establish the confidence level of faculty teaching in three veterinary schools with regard to their client communication skills, ii) establish a baseline of professional ethics indicators in the same faculty, and iii) compare veterinary students of all levels to faculty in both areas. Students and faculty received identical questionnaires, including statements addressing client communication skills and professional ethics. The results indicate that students are generally comfortable with their communication skills, except in the areas of visual and/or audio aid use, handling emotional clients, and discussing costs of care and payment. Faculty were more comfortable than students in all areas of client communication, although they also had low confidence when dealing with costs of care and payment. Ethically, students and faculty answered similarly. Faculty showed a stronger belief that people are basically honest and ethical, but both cohorts responded similarly when asked about reporting an ethical violation admitted to them by their best friend. Further research is needed to determine whether students are communicating as effectively as they believe they are, with particular attention paid to improving communications with emotional clients and the business aspects of veterinary medicine. Additional work is needed to ensure that veterinary students are learning how to cope with ethical issues objectively. This may begin by ensuring that faculty are teaching and, more importantly, modeling these behaviors during the clinical year(s).
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".