↓ Skip to main content

Simulated consultations: a sociolinguistic perspective

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 4,042)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
247 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Simulated consultations: a sociolinguistic perspective
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0535-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Atkins, Celia Roberts, Kamila Hawthorne, Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract

Assessment of consulting skills using simulated patients is widespread in medical education. Most research into such assessment is sited in a statistical paradigm that focuses on psychometric properties or replicability of such tests. Equally important, but less researched, is the question of how far consultations with simulated patients reflect real clinical encounters - for which sociolinguistics, defined as the study of language in its socio-cultural context, provides a helpful analytic lens. In this debate article, we draw on a detailed empirical study of assessed role-plays, involving sociolinguistic analysis of talk in OSCE interactions. We consider critically the evidence for the simulated consultation (a) as a proxy for the real; (b) as performance; (c) as a context for assessing talk; and (d) as potentially disadvantaging candidates trained overseas. Talk is always a performance in context, especially in professional situations (such as the consultation) and institutional ones (the assessment of professional skills and competence). Candidates who can handle the social and linguistic complexities of the artificial context of assessed role-plays score highly - yet what is being assessed is not real professional communication, but the ability to voice a credible appearance of such communication. Fidelity may not be the primary objective of simulation for medical training, where it enables the practising of skills. However the linguistic problems and differences that arise from interacting in artificial settings are of considerable importance in assessment, where we must be sure that the exam construct adequately embodies the skills expected for real-life practice. The reproducibility of assessed simulations should not be confused with their validity. Sociolinguistic analysis of simulations in various professional contexts has identified evidence for the gap between real interactions and assessed role-plays. The contextual conditions of the simulated consultation both expect and reward a particular interactional style. Whilst simulation undoubtedly has a place in formative learning for professional communication, the simulated consultation may distort assessment of professional communication These sociolinguistic findings contribute to the on-going critique of simulations in high-stakes assessments and indicate that further research, which steps outside psychometric approaches, is necessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 247 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Lecturer 14 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Linguistics 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 153. 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 16 July 2019.
All research outputs
#272,459
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#13
of 4,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,625
of 404,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 404,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.