Development and psychometric validation for evaluating written medicine information in Thailand: The Consumer Information Rating Form

ObjectiveTo translate and validate the consumer information rating form (CIRF) for use in Thai populations.DesignThe development of the CIRF was carried out in two phases: translation process and cognitive interview, and psychometric testing.SettingA university hospital and a tertiary hospital in northeast Thailand.Participants150 outpatients from medicine department: 30 for phase 1 and 120 patients for phase 2 study.MethodsThe CIRF was translated with cultural adaptation into Thai using cognitive interview technique in a sample of outpatients. A larger sample of outpatients then completed the CIRF in relation to either a package insert (PI) or a patient information leaflet (PIL) for one of three medicines: atorvastatin, celecoxib and metformin. Construct validity was assessed using principal component analysis (PCA) and internal consistency using Cronbach’s α coefficient. Known group validity was assessed by comparing mean consumers’ ratings for PIs and PILs.ResultsThirty participants engaged in the cognitive interview and 120 participants completed the CIRF. The PCA found the 17 items of the CIRF were extracted into three factors: comprehensibility, utility and design quality scales, mirroring the original. Cronbach’s α for the overall scale (0.904) indicated good internal consistency. Known-group validity demonstrated significant differences in consumers’ rating between PIs and PILs for almost all items (p<0.001).ConclusionThai version of CIRF had acceptable validity and reliability for Thai consumers’ ratings of written medicine information. The CIRF could be of practical use in the process of developing medicine information to ensure consumers’ comprehension and their usefulness.

Women are the Better Halves: Gender-based Variations in Virtues and Character Strengths

Several feminists have been arguing on the superiority of women over men. This debate, instead of being biological, revolves around the gender roles and moral characteristics of humans, based on which women have been regarded better than men. The current study supported this claim by involving 620 participants, including men and women. Character Strengths Rating Form (Ruch et al., 2014) was used to obtain data. Women projected significantly higher levels on a variety of character strengths as compared to men. The results revealed that women had significantly higher levels of wisdom, justice, curiosity, love of learning, social intelligence, leadership and appreciation of beauty and excellence. The overall picture confirmed women to be more virtuous than men.

Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared to clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar PID-5 scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form (FFMRF). When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly-rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e. theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFMRF compared to their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

The IMPLEMENTATION OF OSCE (OBJECTIVE STRUCTURED CLINICAL EXAMINATION) METHODS STUDENTS OF STIKES HANGTUAH PEKANBARU

The development of nursing science and technology that is increasingly sophisticated requires nursing staff to be competent, so that the world of nursing education must be able to prepare graduates who are able to compete both nationally and globally. To achieve competence, especially in the field of skills, the OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Examination) method is used. To assess clinical performance or abilities in a structured and objective manner. This study aims to describe the design (the preparation of blue prints, cases and stations and the preparation of a checklist or rating form) used in OSCE, describe standard patients, describe OSCE examiners, describe facilities and infrastructure in the implementation of OSCE, describe standard settings in the implementation of OSCE and describe overall OSCE implementation. This research used observational quantitative research with a descriptive research design. The population in this study were lecturers who carried out OSCE using a total sampling technique. The data collection tool used a questionnaire and data analysis was carried out univariately. The results of the study show that 18 (60%), OSCE standard patients have carried out 16 (53.3%), OSCE examiners have carried out 20 (53,3%) have carried out the OSCE design (blue print, case and station preparation and checklist or rating form) 66.7%), OSCE facilities and infrastructure that have been implemented 19 (63.3%), OSCE standard setting that has been implemented 16 (53.3%) and OSCE implementation that has been implemented as a whole is 17 (56.7%) . The implementation of OSCE must be using the existing standart, so it can be used as a tool to evaluate the students' clinical skills, blue print is an important aspect to be prepare before OSCE.

Why real-world health information technology performance transparency is challenging, even when everyone (claims to) want it

Crowdsourced ratings have driven increased performance transparency between consumers and suppliers. While many industries have benefitted from such transparency, crowdsourced ratings have struggled to scale in the healthcare domain. In theory, interoperability services offer an ideal setting for crowdsourced ratings: costs are high, performance is variable, and information asymmetries between provider organizations (customers) and vendors offering interoperability solutions exist. Via a Cooperative Agreement between the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and University of California, San Francisco, we developed InteropSelect, a public website that allows crowdsourced ratings of interoperability service purchases. While we garnered broad engagement during the development process, the site failed to attract sufficient reviewers, which is fundamental to the success of crowdsourcing. Additional challenges included the lack of service commoditization that resulted in a complex rating form and lack of market dynamics that facilitated vendor engagement. Our lessons cast doubt on whether crowdsourcing and similar performance transparency efforts under the 21st Century Cures Act will succeed.

Is Narcissism a Slow Life History Strategy Indicator?: The Answer Depends on the LHS Instrument

The dark triad (DT) traits are differentially related to psychometrically assessed life history strategy (LHS), such that psychopathy is strongly associated with a faster LHS, whereas narcissism appears to be, if anything, a slow LHS indicator. However, the research supporting these generalizations has been based largely on undergraduate samples in which LHS has been measured using the Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB; or its short version the Mini-K), an instrument that arguably lacks adequate coverage of low-extroversion content linked to a slower LHS. In this study, 929 U.S. MTurk workers completed a set of DT instruments, a 10-item Big Five Inventory, a 42-item version of the ALHB (K-SF-42), and the life history rating form (LHRF), which is less weighted toward high extroversion content than the ALHB. Factor analysis of the DT instruments yielded factors corresponding to callousness, secondary psychopathy, and socially adaptive narcissism (leadership/authority and grandiose exhibitionism). Callousness and secondary psychopathy were fast LHS indicators with respect to both LHS instruments. Socially adaptive narcissism appeared as a slow LHS indicator with respect to the K-SF-42 but as a fast LHS indicator with respect to the LHRF. Variation in extroversion accounted entirely for the K-SF-42’s positive association with socially adaptive narcissism. This study suggests that narcissism’s apparent status as a slow LHS indicator may be more a matter of measurement than of substance.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of assessment of cilinical reasoning of medical students by observation versus post encounter assessment in a clinical practice setting.

Background The assessment of clinical reasoning by medical students in clinical practice is very difficult. Partly this is because the fundamental mechanisms of clinical reasoning are difficult to uncover and when known, hard to observe and interpret. Methods We developed an observation tool to assess the clinical reasoning ability of medical students during clinical practice. The observation tool consists of an 11-item observation rating form. The validity, reliability and feasibility of this tool were verified among medical students during the internal medicine clerkship and compared to an existing post-encounter rating tool. Results Six raters assessed each, the same 15 student-patient encounters. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alfa) for the observation rating tool (ORT) was 0.87 (0.71-0.84) and the 5-item post encounter rating tool (PERT) was 0.81 (0.71-0.87). The intraclass-correlation coefficient for single measurements was poor for both the ORT; 0.32 (p<0.001) as well as the PERT; 0.36 (p<0.001). The generalizability study (G-study) and decision study (D-study) showed that 6 raters are required to achieve a G-coefficient of > 0.7 for the ORT and 7 raters for the PERT. The largest sources of variance are the interaction between raters and students. There was a correlation between the ORT and PERT of 0.53 (p=0.04) Conclusions The ORT and PERT are both feasible, valid and reliable instruments to assess students’ clinical reasoning skills in clinical practice.