↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire (SE-12) measuring the clinical communication skills of health care professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire (SE-12) measuring the clinical communication skills of health care professionals
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0798-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette K. Axboe, Kaj S. Christensen, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Jette Ammentorp

Abstract

The outcome of communication training is widely measured by self-efficacy ratings, and different questionnaires have been used. Nevertheless, none of these questionnaires have been formally validated through systematic measurement of assessment properties. Consequently, we decided to further develop a self-efficacy questionnaire which has been used in previous studies. This study aims to examine the content, internal structure, and relations with other variables of the new version of the self-efficacy questionnaire (SE-12). The questionnaire was developed on the basis of the theoretical approach applied in the communication course, statements from former course participants, teachers, and experts in the field. The questionnaire was initially validated through face-to-face interviews with 9 staff members following a test-retest including 195 participants. After minor adjustments, the SE-12 questionnaire demonstrated evidence of content validity. An explorative factor analysis indicated unidimensionality with highly correlated items. A Cronbach's α of 0.95 and a Loevinger's H coefficient of 0.71 provided evidence of statistical reliability and scalability. The test-retest reliability had a value of 0.71 when evaluated using intra-class correlation. Expected relations with other variables were partially confirmed in two of three hypotheses, but a ceiling effect was present in 9 of 12 items. The SE-12 scale should be regarded a reliable and partially valid instrument. We consider the questionnaire useful for self-evaluation of clinical communication skills; the SE-12 is user-friendly and can be administered as an electronic questionnaire. However, future research should explore potential needs for adjustments to reduce the identified ceiling effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Lecturer 11 5%
Other 51 25%
Unknown 67 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 11%
Psychology 21 10%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 77 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,423,253
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,662
of 4,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,244
of 324,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#42
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.