MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416920411 · doi:10.12688/mep.21320.1

Optimizing the Reliability of Communication Skills Assessment in Clinical Dentistry: A Generalizability Study

2025· article· en· W4416920411 on OpenAlex
Ghaith Alfakhry, Ariel Lindorff

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Council
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryReliability (semiconductor)Exploratory factor analysisCommunication skillsArabicInter-rater reliabilityValidity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>Introduction Communication skills are universally recognised as a core competency. This study aims to develop and validate an CCG-adapted instrument for communication skills in clinical settings that can be used by trainees themselves (self-assessment). Methods This study was conducted at Damascus University Dental School, Syria in 2024 within authentic clinical settings. Based on Calgary Cambridge Guide, a 31-item assessment instrument was developed, translated and cross-culturally validated for the Syrian Arabic context. An assessment comprised six consultation sessions with six patients (three real and three standardized) was conducted. After each consultation, students and patients completed the assessment form. A balanced, fully crossed, three-facet design Generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies were used to assess reliability for student and patient assessments. Structural validity was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) . Results Self-assessment demonstrated excellent reliability (G-coefficient = 0.93), reaching &gt;0.90 with four cases. Patient assessments showed moderate reliability (G = 0.66), with Decision studies projecting improvements to 0.72 with 8 raters, 0.80 with 13 raters, and ~0.90 with ≥30 raters. Reliability estimates for real patients (G = 0.51) were comparable to standardized patients (G = 0.55), with differences narrowing as rater numbers increased. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a one-factor solution explaining 52.1% of the variance. Conclusion A validated self-assessment tool can foster communication skills development, while real patients provide reliability comparable to standardized patients, offering cost-effective, authentic, and participatory approaches. This first Arabic version of the tool addresses training gaps in communication skills in the Arab region.</ns3:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it