RationaleThe validated 19-item Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) is often used for assessing attitudes toward interprofessional education (IPE). The 12-item Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS), also used for this purpose, has not been validated among the professions of medicine, pharmacy, and physician assistants (PAs). The discriminatory ability of the two scales has not been directly compared. Comparison of the two will aid educators in selecting the optimal scale.ObjectiveTo compare psychometric properties of the RIPLS and IEPS and to examine the ability of each scale to discriminate mean scores among student subgroups (gender, profession, seniority, and prior IPE exposure).MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional (Qualtrics©) survey (RIPLS and IEPS) of junior and senior students in medicine (n=360), pharmacy (n=360), and the PA profession (n=106). Descriptive statistics were used to report aggregate mean scores of subgroups. The internal consistency of each scale was assessed using Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients. Independent-sample t-tests and analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the discriminatory ability of each scale. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated for all significant pair-wise comparisons.ResultsResponse rate was 82%. Cronbach's α was 0.85 (RIPLS) and 0.91 (IEPS). The RIPLS discriminated scores by gender among junior students only, and scores by IPE exposure among all students. The IEPS distinguished score differences for the three professions among junior students and by prior IPE exposure for all three professions. Neither scale detected differences in mean scores by profession among all students or by level of training among the three professions.ConclusionsNeither the RIPLS nor the IEPS has greater discriminatory ability for detecting attitude differences among the student subgroups. Reason for differences may be explained by slightly different scale constructs. The RIPLS is designed to assess students’ own attitude toward interprofessional learning, while the IEPS discerns perceived attitudes about team collaboration for students’ own professions and may be more appropriate for more advanced students.

The increasing use of CAM by patients has led to an increase in teaching about CAM in medical school in the US. In preparation for initiation of a new curriculum in Integrative Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA a cross sectional survey was used to assess medical students': (i) familiarity, (ii) opinions, (iii) personal use and (iv) willingness to recommend specific CAM modalities, using a five point Likert scale of an established measure. A total of 263 first, second and third year medical students at UCLA completed surveys. Third year students reported less personal use of CAM and less favorable attitudes towards CAM than first year students. Since this was a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal study this may be a cohort effect. However, it may reflect the increased curricular emphasis on evidenced-based medicine, and subsequent student dependence on randomized clinical trials to influence and guide practice. This will need to be addressed in curricular efforts to incorporate Integrative Medicine.

Purpose To examine medical students’ perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of core clerkship assessment, the clerkship learning environment, and contributors to students’ achievement. Method Fourth-year medical students at 6 institutions completed a survey in 2018 assessing perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading, the learning environment including clerkship goal structures (mastery- or performance-oriented), racial/ethnic stereotype threat, and student performance (honors earned). Factor analysis of 5-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) provided scale scores of perceptions. Using multivariable regression, investigators examined predictors of honors earned. Qualitative content analysis of responses to an open-ended question yielded students’ recommendations to improve clerkship grading. Results Overall response rate was 71.1% (666/937). Students believed that being liked and particular supervisors most influenced final grades. Only 44.4% agreed that grading was fair. Students felt the clerkship learning environment promoted both mastery and performance avoidance behaviors (88.0% and 85.6%, respectively). Students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were more likely to experience stereotype threat vulnerability (55.7% vs 10.9%, P < .0005). Honors earned was positively associated with perceived accuracy of grading and interest in competitive specialties while negatively associated with stereotype threat. Students recommended strategies to improve clerkship grading: eliminating honors, training evaluators, and rewarding improvement on clerkships. Conclusions Participants had concerns around the fairness and accuracy of clerkship evaluation and grading and potential bias. Students expressed a need to redefine the culture of assessment on core clerkships to create more favorable learning environments for all students.

BACKGROUNDPatient-centered care has been described as one approach to cultural competency education that could reduce racial and ethnic health disparities by preparing providers to deliver care that is respectful and responsive to the preferences of each patient. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a curriculum in teaching patient-centered care (PCC) behaviors to medical students, we drew on the work of Kleinman, Eisenberg, and Good to develop a scale that could be embedded across cases in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).OBJECTIVETo compare the reliability, validity, and feasibility of an embedded patient-centered care scale with the use of a single culturally challenging case in measuring students′ use of PCC behaviors as part of a comprehensive OSCE.METHODSA total of 322 students from two California medical schools participated in the OSCE as beginning seniors. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of each approach. Construct validity was addressed by establishing convergent and divergent validity using the cultural challenge case total score and OSCE component scores. Feasibility assessment considered cost and training needs for the standardized patients (SPs).RESULTSMedical students demonstrated a moderate level of patient-centered skill (mean = 63%, SD = 11%). The PCC Scale demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (alpha = 0.68) over the single case scale (alpha = 0.60). Both convergent and divergent validities were established through low to moderate correlation coefficients.DISCUSSIONThe insertion of PCC items across multiple cases in a comprehensive OSCE can provide a reliable estimate of students′ use of PCC behaviors without incurring extra costs associated with implementing a special cross-cultural OSCE. This approach is particularly feasible when an OSCE is already part of the standard assessment of clinical skills. Reliability may be increased with an additional investment in SP training.