Assessments of empathy in medical school admissions: what additional evidence is needed?

The Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME) sponsored a symposium on the theme of Examin-ing the Evidence with Regard to Character, Personality and Values in Medical School Selection which was held on October 14, 2013 at the University of Sheffield Medical School in the United Kingdom. I was invited to speak about credibility issues related to personality assessments in health profession educations. To my pleasant surprise, I found the European audience receptive (more than their counterparts in the United States) to the idea of using personality assess-ments in admission decisions. There seems to be a hesita-tion among leaders in medical education in the United States to use personality assessments for selection purposes. They argue that convincing evidence is needed to support using personality assessments in medical school admission. In my presentation, I provided evidence to refute the argument against using personality assessments in admis-sion decisions. Because of our extensive research at Jeffer-son Medical College on the topic of empathy in medical education and patient care, I placed the emphasis on credibility of evidence for using assessments of empathy, as a personality attribute, in the selection of applicants and professional development of students in any academic health profession institution. The editor of this journal who has a keen interest in medical education issues attended the symposium and suggested that I write an opinion piece about the issue for international audience of the journal. This editorial is based, in part, on my presentation at that symposium

Exploration and confirmation of the latent variable structure of the Jefferson scale of empathy.

OBJECTIVE: To reaffirm the underlying components of the JSE by using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and to confirm its latent variable structure by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). METHODS: Research participants included 2,612 medical students who entered Jefferson Medical College between 2002 and 2012. This sample was divided into two groups: Matriculants between 2002 and 2007 (n=1,380) and be-tween 2008 and 2012 (n=1,232). Data for 2002-2007 matriculants were subjected to EFA (principal component factor extraction), and data for matriculants of 2008-2012 were used for CFA (structural equation modeling, and root mean square error for approximation. RESULTS: The EFA resulted in three factors: perspective-taking, compassionate care and walking in patient\u27s shoes replicating the 3-factor model reported in most of the previous studies. The CFA showed that the 3-factor model was an acceptable fit, thus confirming the latent variable structure emerged in the EFA. Corrected item-total score correlations for the total sample were all positive and statistically significant, ranging from 0.13 to 0.61 with a median of 0.44 (p=0.01). The item discrimination effect size indices (contrasting item mean scores for the top-third versus bottom-third JSE scorers) ranged from 0.50 to 1.4 indicating that the differences in item mean scores between top and bottom scorers on the JSE were of practical importance. Cronbach\u27s alpha coefficient of the JSE for the total sample was 0.80, ranging from 0.75 to 0.84 for matriculatnts of different years. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provided further support for under-lying constructs of the JSE, adding to its credibility

Predictors of Physicians\u27 Discontent

No abstract available

Eleven Years of Data on the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Medical Student Version (JSE-S): Proxy Norm Data and Tentative Cutoff Scores.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to provide typical descriptive statistics, score distributions and percentile ranks of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Medical Student version (JSE-S) of male and female medical school matriculants to serve as proxy norm data and tentative cutoff scores. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The participants were 2,637 students (1,336 women and 1,301 men) who matriculated at Sidney Kimmel (formerly Jefferson) Medical College between 2002 and 2012, and completed the JSE at the beginning of medical school. Information extracted from descriptive statistics, score distributions and percentile ranks for male and female matriculants were used to develop proxy norm data and tentative cutoff scores. RESULTS: The score distributions of the JSE tended to be moderately skewed and platykurtic. Women obtained a significantly higher mean score (116.2 ± 9.7) than men (112.3 ± 10.8) on the JSE-S (t2,635 = 9.9, p \u3c 0.01). It was suggested that percentile ranks can be used as proxy norm data. The tentative cutoff score to identify low scorers was ≤ 95 for men and ≤ 100 for women. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide norm data and cutoff scores for admission decisions under certain conditions and for identifying students in need of enhancing their empathy

Patient Perceptions of Clinician\u27s Empathy: Measurement and Psychometrics.

The prominence of reciprocal understanding in patient–doctor empathic engagement implies that patient perception of clinician’s empathy has an important role in the assessment of the patient–clinician relationship. In response to a need for an assessment tool to measure patient’s views of clinician empathy, we developed a brief (5-item) instrument, the Jefferson Scale of Patient Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE). This review article reports evidence in support of the validity and reliability of the JSPPPE

Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy

No abstract available

Academic performance of psychiatrists compared to other specialists before, during, and after medical school.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare psychiatrists with other physicians on measures of academic performance before, during, and after medical school. METHOD: More than three decades of data for graduates of Jefferson Medical College (N=5,701) were analyzed. Those who pursued psychiatry were compared to physicians in seven other specialties on 18 performance measures. Analysis of covariance was used to control for gender effect. RESULTS: Compared to other physicians, psychiatrists scored higher on measures of verbal ability and general information before medical school and on evaluations of knowledge and skills in behavioral sciences during medical school, but they scored lower on United States Medical Licensing Examinations step 3. CONCLUSIONS: The results generally confirmed the authors\u27 expectations about psychiatrists\u27 academic performance. More attention should be paid to the general medical education of psychiatrists

Underlying construct of empathy, optimism, and burnout in medical students.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to explore the underlying construct of measures of empathy, optimism, and burnout in medical students. METHODS: Three instruments for measuring empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy, JSE); Optimism (the Life Orientation Test-Revised, LOT-R); and burnout (the Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI, which includes three scales of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment) were administered to 265 third-year students at Sidney Kimmel (formerly Jefferson) Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Data were subjected to factor analysis to examine relationships among measures of empathy, optimism, and burnout in a multivariate statistical model. RESULTS: Factor analysis (principal component with oblique rotation) resulted in two underlying constructs, each with an eigenvalue greater than one. The first factor involved positive personality attributes (factor coefficients greater than .58 for measures of empathy, optimism, and personal accomplishment). The second factor involved negative personality attributes (factor coefficients greater than .78 for measures of emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization). CONCLUSIONS: Results confirmed that an association exists between empathy in the context of patient care and personality characteristics that are conducive to relationship building, and considered to be positive personality attributes, as opposed to personality characteristics that are considered as negative personality attributes that are detrimental to interpersonal relationships. Implications for the professional development of physicians-in-training and in-practice are discussed