Cargando…

The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis

BACKGROUND: Health care providers are continually seeking to improve patient communication to improve patient outcomes. The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a set of recommended communication practices and an instrument to evaluate health care providers' use of and perceived effecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walker, Danielle, Howe, Carol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SLACK Incorporated 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31294266
http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20170912-01
_version_ 1783432144656269312
author Walker, Danielle
Howe, Carol
author_facet Walker, Danielle
Howe, Carol
author_sort Walker, Danielle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health care providers are continually seeking to improve patient communication to improve patient outcomes. The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a set of recommended communication practices and an instrument to evaluate health care providers' use of and perceived effectiveness of these techniques. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess factor structure of the AMA Communication Techniques Survey using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate reliability of the instrument among nurses and allied health professionals who provide diabetes education. METHODS: A national convenience sample of 522 diabetes educators completed the survey; this sample was split into two subsamples—the EFA (n = 302) and CFA (n = 220). Of this sample, 60.2% (n = 314) were nurses. Factor structure and reliability analysis of the AMA Communication Techniques Survey was conducted. KEY RESULTS: EFA with varimax rotation revealed two internally consistent subscales labeled basic and advanced communication techniques. CFA determined that basic and advanced technique subscales were a good fit for the factors. Basic techniques included items such as speaking slowly and using simple words. Advanced techniques included the Teach-Back method, underlining words in printed materials, and presenting 2 to 3 concepts at a time. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale was .81 and .70 (basic subscale) and .74 (advanced subscale), indicating good reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The AMA Communication Techniques Survey appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to examine communication practices of diabetes educators. Additionally, EFA confirms previously hypothesized basic and advanced subscales. However, the factors included in each scale differ from previous conceptualization. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e208–e215.] PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study established reliability and validity for the American Medical Association Communication Technqiues Survey among diabetes educators. Data support the creation of two separate groups of items: basic and advanced techqniues.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6607786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SLACK Incorporated
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66077862019-07-10 The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis Walker, Danielle Howe, Carol Health Lit Res Pract Original Research BACKGROUND: Health care providers are continually seeking to improve patient communication to improve patient outcomes. The American Medical Association (AMA) developed a set of recommended communication practices and an instrument to evaluate health care providers' use of and perceived effectiveness of these techniques. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess factor structure of the AMA Communication Techniques Survey using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate reliability of the instrument among nurses and allied health professionals who provide diabetes education. METHODS: A national convenience sample of 522 diabetes educators completed the survey; this sample was split into two subsamples—the EFA (n = 302) and CFA (n = 220). Of this sample, 60.2% (n = 314) were nurses. Factor structure and reliability analysis of the AMA Communication Techniques Survey was conducted. KEY RESULTS: EFA with varimax rotation revealed two internally consistent subscales labeled basic and advanced communication techniques. CFA determined that basic and advanced technique subscales were a good fit for the factors. Basic techniques included items such as speaking slowly and using simple words. Advanced techniques included the Teach-Back method, underlining words in printed materials, and presenting 2 to 3 concepts at a time. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale was .81 and .70 (basic subscale) and .74 (advanced subscale), indicating good reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The AMA Communication Techniques Survey appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to examine communication practices of diabetes educators. Additionally, EFA confirms previously hypothesized basic and advanced subscales. However, the factors included in each scale differ from previous conceptualization. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e208–e215.] PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study established reliability and validity for the American Medical Association Communication Technqiues Survey among diabetes educators. Data support the creation of two separate groups of items: basic and advanced techqniues. SLACK Incorporated 2017-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6607786/ /pubmed/31294266 http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20170912-01 Text en © 2017 Walker, Howe, et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). This license allows users to copy and distribute, to remix, transform, and build upon the article, for any purpose, even commercially, provided the author is attributed and is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work.
spellingShingle Original Research
Walker, Danielle
Howe, Carol
The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title_full The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title_fullStr The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title_full_unstemmed The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title_short The AMA Communication Techniques Survey: A Psychometric Analysis
title_sort ama communication techniques survey: a psychometric analysis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31294266
http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20170912-01
work_keys_str_mv AT walkerdanielle theamacommunicationtechniquessurveyapsychometricanalysis
AT howecarol theamacommunicationtechniquessurveyapsychometricanalysis
AT walkerdanielle amacommunicationtechniquessurveyapsychometricanalysis
AT howecarol amacommunicationtechniquessurveyapsychometricanalysis