Differences in expectations of passing standards in communication skills for pre-clinical and clinical medical students

Abstract

Objective: Communication and interpersonal skills (CIS) are essential elements of competency-based education. We examined defensible CIS passing levels for medical students completing basic sciences (second-year students) and clinical training (fourth-year students), using five standard setting methods.

Methods: A 14-item CIS scale was used. Data from second-year (n = 190) and fourth-year (n = 170) students were analyzed using descriptive statistics and generalizability studies. Fifteen judges defined borderline CIS performance. Cut scores and fail rates from five standard setting methods (Angoff, Borderline-Group, Borderline-Regression, Contrasting-Groups, and Normative methods) were examined.

Results: CIS performance was similar during second-year (Mean = 74%, SD = 6%) and fourth-year (Mean = 72%, SD = 5%) students. Judges using the Angoff method expected greater competence at the fourth-year level, as reflected in the Angoff cut scores (second-year = 53% with 0% fail, fourth-year = 66% with 10% fail). Cut scores from the remaining methods did not differentiate between training levels. We found evidence of case specificity.

Conclusion: Performance on CIS may be case specific. Passing standards for communication skills may require employing approaches such as the Angoff method that are sensitive to expectations of learner performance for different levels of training, competencies, and milestone levels.

Practice implications: Institutions that want to encourage continued growth in CIS should apply appropriate standard setting methods.

Keywords: Communication and interpersonal skills; Medical education; Medical students; Standard setting.