Peer assessment of empathy and communication skills: a new approach in undergraduate medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This project plan proposes a new learning activity and assessment model of medical students' empathy and communication skills. An empathic ability and communication skills are crucial in a student future role as a physician. Empathy and communication skills are also Entrustable Professional Activities in most undergraduate medical educational programs1.Method: The students are first introduced to the assessment instruments, the Calgary-Cambridge referenced observational guide2 and the Consultation and Relational Empathy3 and taught about verbal and non-verbal expressions commonly used in communications between patients and physicians. The students are then presented to pre-recorded videos, demonstrating different empathic and communication skills commonly used during communicative interactions with patient.The students are randomly assigned to act as both patient and physician in a simulated role play model. A fellow student records this conversation using appropriate video technology. The student acting as a patient assesses the empathic ability of the peer student using the Consultation and Relational Empath assessment instrument and the student acting as a physician assesses own communication skills using the Calgary-Cambridge referenced observational guide. The video, approved by both students, together with a completed Consultation and Relational Empathy and Calgary-Cambridge referenced observational guide assessments are then sent to the tutor for evaluation. The tutor randomly passes the video to a third student. The third student makes an assessment using the Calgary-Cambridge referenced observational guide of the student acting as a physician in the video, and then send the report to the tutor for evaluation. The tutor reviews these assessments and then passes them to the students to whom the assessment relates to. The student then makes a summarizing reflection, in their electronic portfolio, about the role as patient and physician with a reflection also including the peer student assessments of their empathy and communication skills.
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 | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".