Evaluation of Fourth-Year Veterinary Students' Client Communication Skills: Recommendations for Scaffolded Instruction and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective client communication is important for success in veterinary practice. The purpose of this project was to describe one approach to communication training and explore fourth-year veterinary students' communication skills through an evaluation of their interactions with clients during a general practice rotation. Two raters coded 20 random videotaped interactions simultaneously to assess students' communication, including their ability to initiate the session, incorporate open-ended questions, listen reflectively, express empathy, incorporate appropriate nonverbal communication, and attend to organization and sequencing. We provide baseline data that will guide future instruction in client communication. Results showed that students' communication skills require development. Half of the students sampled excelled at open-ended inquiry (n=10), and 40% (n=8) excelled at nonverbal communication. Students needed improvement on greeting clients by name and introducing themselves and their role (n=15), reflective listening (n=18), empathy (n=17), and organization and sequencing (n=18). These findings suggest that more focused instruction and practice is necessary in maintaining an organized structure, reflective listening, and empathy to create a relationship-centered approach to care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".