148: Improving Medical Students' Confidence and Interviewing Skills Regarding Adolescent Interviewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adolescent interview is a challenging task that requires strong communication skills developed through practice and training To explore whether receiving structured feedback from an adolescent and mother Standardized Patient (SP) pair improves medical students' confidence regarding interviewing adolescents. Secondly, to identify self-perceived learning needs in the adolescent interview. Participants were medical students undergoing their core Pediatric Clerkship Rotation. Students were randomized into two groups and asked to rate their confidence levels involving basic communication components of adolescent interviewing on a 13-item structured questionnaire. Following an interview with an adolescent SP and mother pair, one group received structured feedback (F1) on their performance and a second group received no structured feedback (F0). After the SP pair encounter, students were asked to rate their confidence levels a second time using the 13-item questionnaire. Students also ranked self-perceived learning needs in six components of adolescent medicine. Students who received structured feedback (n=25) on their adolescent interviewing skills from an SP pair showed an increase in mean confidence scores on all the 13-item structured questions. Mann-Whitney analysis comparing post-intervention confidence scores between the feedback, (F1) and no feedback (F0) groups showed that the F1 group (Mdn=27.58) had a significantly higher mean confidence score on Question 3 ‘Physical Exam’ than did the F0 group (Mdn=17.28), U=135.50, z=−2.97, P=0.001. The F1 group (Mdn=26.14) also had a significantly higher mean confidence score on Question 6 ‘Sexual Issues’ than the F0 group (Mdn=19.08), U=171.50, z=−1.93; P=0.023. The F1 group demonstrated a trend towards increased mean confidence scores post-intervention on questions that were directly referenced by the structured feedback tool used by the SP pair. The six ranked self-perceived learning needs indicated students felt least prepared for ‘Sexuality Questioning’ and most prepared for ‘Physical Examination’. An SP interview followed by structured feedback from the SP pair improved medical students' confidence level in their adolescent interviewing skills. This study also highlighted important areas of the adolescent interview that required further training, which have since been incorporated into the undergraduate medical training at our institute. Lastly, structured feedback was shown to be a useful tool in the adolescent interview and was further incorporated into our curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".