Evaluation of dental students' clinical communication skills from three perspective approaches: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The communication skills of clinicians are very crucial in providing better health outcomes for patients. Therefore, this study aimed to assess undergraduate dental students' communication skills in relation to their demographics and clinical setting using a three-perspective approach; the student, the patient and the clinical instructor perspective. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using validated modified-communication tools; Patient Communication Assessment Instruments (PCAI), Student Communication Assessment Instruments (SCAI) and Clinical Communication Assessment Instruments (CCAI) which included four communication domains. One hundred and seventy-six undergraduate clinical year students were recruited in this study whereby each of them was assessed by a clinical instructor and a randomly selected patient in two settings: Dental Health Education (DHE) and Comprehensive Care (CC) clinic. RESULTS: Comparing the three perspectives, PCAI yielded the highest scores across all domains, followed by SCAI and CCAI (p < .001). SCAI exhibited a better score in Year 5 compared to Year 3 and Year 4 (p = .027). The male students perceived they performed better than females in all domains (p < .05). Patients rated the students higher in the DHE clinic as compared to the CC clinic for the team interaction domain. CONCLUSION: There was an upward pattern of the communication skills score rated from the clinical instructor perspective to the student and patient perspectives. The use of PCAI, SCAI and CCAI collectively gave a complementary view of students' communication performance in all the domains assessed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".