Using Authentic Client Interactions in Communication Skills Training: Predictors of Proficiency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication training has become a focus of concern in recent years in veterinary medicine. Existing literature to date indicates that Colleges of Veterinary Medicine (CVMs) have implemented various communication training protocols. The present study focused on the evaluation of a communication training protocol implemented in 2007 at Kansas State University (KSU) in a sample of veterinary medical students (N=415) across five cohorts. The protocol includes video review of authentic client interactions, feedback from authentic clients, and small-group communication training. Findings indicate that targeted communication skills improved through video-review feedback and small-group communication training. Communication scores were particularly affected by students' attention to improving communication deficiencies during a second student-client video. Baseline scores from the first student-client video in four specific areas (using nonverbal communication, setting expectations, building rapport, and being able to clarify) were predictive of overall performance during the second evaluation. Based on the results of the present study, using videos of authentic client interactions is recommended as a valuable communication training teaching tool.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it