A Methodological Review of the Assessment of Humanism in Medical Students

Review Paper Moderator: Gail Furman, PhD, MSN A Methodological Review of the Assessment of Humanism in Medical Students Era Buck, PhD, Mark Holden, MD, and Karen Szauter, MD Abstract Background Humanism is a complex construct that defies simplistic measurement. How educators measure humanism shapes understanding and implications for learners. This systematic review sought to address the following questions: How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact the understanding of humanism in undergraduate medical education (UME)? Method Using the IECARES (integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service) Gold Foundation framework, a search of English literature databases from Humanism provides the passion that animates authentic professionalism. —Jordan J. Cohen T he optimal practice of medicine requires much more than mastering the rapidly evolving foundational and clinical sciences. Humanism is core to the provision of excellent patient care. Fostering the development of humanistic physicians poses a great challenge to medical educators as methods to promote and assess humanism throughout the educational continuum are methodologically complex and highly contextual. The importance of professionalism in health care has been described and studied extensively over the past two Correspondence: Era Buck, PhD, Office of Educational Development, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555-0408; telephone: (409) 772-3235; e-mail: erbuck@utmb.edu. Acad Med. 2015;90:S14–S23. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000910 S14 2000 to 2013 on assessment of humanism in medical students revealed more than 900 articles, of which 155 met criteria for analysis. Using descriptive statistics, articles and assessments were analyzed for construct measured, study design, assessment method, instrument type, perspective/source of assessment, student level, validity evidence, and national context. Results Of 202 assessments reported in 155 articles, 162 (80%) used surveys; 164 (81%) used student self-reports. One hundred nine articles (70%) included only one humanism construct. Empathy was the most prevalent construct present in 96 (62%); 49 (51%) of those used a decades. Finding a common definition for professionalism has been challenging, as most agree that this construct has many facets. Several definitions of professionalism include a focus on the humanistic qualities of health care providers.1 Dr. Jordan Cohen posits a unique relationship between these two constructs, defining professionalism as a “way of acting” and humanism as “a way of being.”2 He argues that behavior grounded in deep-seated humanistic qualities is more likely to be sincere and resistant to the many challenges posed by the systems in which health care providers train and work. The Arnold P. Gold Foundation suggests integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service (IECARES) as the core characteristics of humanism.3 Measuring complex attitudes and behaviors poses a special challenge to medical educators. What we know about humanism—its core attributes, our ability to reinforce desirable qualities, and the variability of humanism within an individual over time—is shaped by the way we measure it. Assessment strategies single instrument. One hundred fifteen (74%) used exclusively quantitative data; only 48 (31%) used a longitudinal design. Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity in half of the assessments. Articles included 34 countries; 87 (56%) were from North America. Conclusions Assessment of humanism in UME incorporates a limited scope of a complex construct, often relying on single quantitative measures from self-reported survey instruments. This highlights the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and longitudinal designs to strengthen the validity of humanism assessments. must offer valid measures, be practical, and facilitate contextual interpretation.4 High-quality assessment is an essential foundation for providing feedback to learners, evaluating curricular strategies, and refining our theoretical and conceptual understanding of humanism among medical students. Measuring a construct as multidimensional as humanism requires a variety of techniques and approaches. Closely examining the existing tools and methods in current use is imperative to inform the design of future educational programs and assessment activities. We undertook this work to better understand the current approaches to the measurement of humanism in undergraduate medical education. We specifically asked, “How do medical educators assess humanism in medical students, and how does the measurement impact what we know about humanism in undergraduate medical education?” Method We conducted a systematic narrative examination of the literature to better Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper understand how constructs of humanism were represented throughout work related to medical students. The review process and data abstraction were conducted according to guidelines for systematic reviews, and the synthesis was primarily narrative rather than statistical. This approach allowed inclusion of qualitative and quantitative research studies in the review. Specifically, we sought to examine approaches to the assessment of humanism, anticipating that this might illuminate types of bias present in the literature and identify gaps in the assessment of humanism in undergraduate medical education. Search strategy In consultation with a reference librarian, we conducted electronic searches for English-language articles published between 2000 and 2013 in PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases. Search terms included undergraduate medical education combined with each of the humanism constructs included in IECARES: integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, and service, as well as the term humanism.3 We identified additional articles during the review process by carefully examining the titles in the reference lists of all included and excluded articles. In addition, we conducted forward citation searches for 76 review articles and conceptual or theoretical articles identified in the review process. This iterative process was continued throughout the study period until saturation was reached—that is, all articles identified in reference lists as potentially relevant for review were already in the database of retrieved articles. Inclusion and exclusion criteria An initial review of each article determined whether it met basic inclusion or exclusion criteria. To progress to full review, an article must have met all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria. (1) Peer-reviewed articles; (2) assessment of medical students; (3) sufficient description of assessment to allow validity assessment; and (4) assessment of one of the following: integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, service, humanism, or identity development. We relied on the designation within each article of the construct being assessed as well as the following definitions3: •฀ Integrity is congruence between values and behavior. •฀ Excellence is defined in our review as a commitment to clinical competence stemming from a sense of duty to do what is best for patients. We did not include articles assessing levels of competence at performing clinical skills. •฀ Compassion refers to an awareness and acknowledgment of suffering coupled with a desire to relieve it. •฀ Altruism is the willingness and ability to put others’ needs before one’s own. •฀ Respect is regard for autonomy and values of another including patients and colleagues. •฀ Empathy is defined broadly as the ability to put oneself in another’s situation. •฀ Service refers to giving beyond what is required. •฀ Humanism in health care is characterized by a respectful and compassionate relationship between physicians, as well as all other members of the health care team, and their patients. It reflects attitudes and behaviors that are sensitive to the values and the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of others. •฀ Identity development refers to the transformative process of becoming a humanistic physician.5 Exclusion criteria. (1) Review articles, (2) duplicate reports, or (3) insufficient description of assessment method. Articles were reviewed independently by at least two members of the study team to determine whether they met the criteria listed above, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data abstraction Data abstraction began with an iterative process of developing a data collection form. The coinvestigators met for an intensive training over two days. During Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 that time, common articles were reviewed individually by each member of the team, followed by group discussion of each article. Coding criteria were explicated through consensus. As data collection proceeded, we met weekly to discuss coding issues and maintain consistency among the team as reviewers. For each article, the following information was considered: Target(s) of assessment. We coded each article for integrity, excellence, compassion, altruism, respect, empathy, service, humanism, and/or identity development. We allowed multiple categories to be coded for a single article. Method(s) of assessment. We coded each method as quantitative or qualitative; survey, interview, observation, or reflection; and cross-sectional or longitudinal. For qualitative studies, prompts were recorded on the data abstraction form. We allowed for multiple methods to be coded for a single article. Measurement and variable types. We coded assessments as dichotomous, continuous, ordinal, or descriptive and as independent or outcome variables. There were multiple categories coded for each article. Setting or context of assessment. We coded the nation where data were collected; level of training for students assessed; and setting of assessment. Perspective or source of assessment. We coded perspectives as self, patient, peer, investigator, faculty, standardized patient (SP), or clinical team member. Each assessment in an article was coded for perspective—for instance, an article could be coded as having a self-report survey and an observation by an SP. Validity evidence. Sources of evidence were coded as content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables, or relationship to consequences. Threats to validity. We coded for construct underrepresentation and/ or construct-irrelevant variance. When considering the validity of the assessment, we used criteria based on the work of Downing and Haladyna.6,7 When authors identified specific constructs as the target of assessment, we coded S15 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper them to be consistent with the authors’ designation. In articles where the author was not explicit about target constructs, we made coding decisions as a team. For example, unless otherwise designated by the authors, we included articles assessing patient orientation or patient centeredness as respect, and we coded assessments of emotional intelligence as compassion. Analysis From the plethora of potential analyses for these articles, we focused on those that most directly informed our research question, cataloging assessment strategies and synthesizing that information to understand the impact on the understanding we derive from the literature. We sought to identify areas of strength, gaps, and potential bias that may impact the understanding of medical educators as consumers of the literature. We employed descriptive frequencies and proportions to analyze the data as a whole. On the basis of an initial examination of the data, we also examined subgroups of data, most notably studies assessing empathy among medical students. We assessed the strength of the validity evidence provided by authors as well as threats to the validity of the assessments provided. Because we were not synthesizing the study results, we did not evaluate the quality of study designs. Results Trial flow Figure 1 summarizes the results of the search process. Through the literature search based on key words along with forward and backward citation searches, over 900 articles received at least an initial review. Initial review resulted in exclusion of over 660 articles not meeting the complement of inclusion criteria. Additional articles were excluded after full review when in-depth reading revealed that the assessment of humanism was not of medical students or the description of the assessment approach was not sufficient for the reviewer to determine what might contribute to or detract from the validity of the information in the article. After full review, 155 articles8–162 were included in the database for analysis. Study characteristics The literature we reviewed was published entirely in English yet was very international in origin. Studies with multiple assessments resulted in a total of 202 assessments recorded in our database. Some analyses consider data at the article level and some at the assessment level as needed to provide the most informative results. A summary of articles, organized by construct, is shown in Table 1. Of the assessments (n = 202), 80% (n = 162) were surveys; 12% (n = 25) were observations (21 of which were ratings by SPs); and the remaining 8% (n = 16) were interviews and assessments of medical students’ reflective writing. Similarly, 81% (n = 164) were from the perspective of the students (self-report), 10% (n = 20) from the perspective of an SP, and the remainder distributed among faculty and peers. We reviewed a single paper23 using information from actual patients about students. The total number of citations to these articles is 4,551. Six (3%) articles have been cited more than 100 times, an additional 6 were cited between 50 and 99 times, and 28 articles were cited 25 to 49 times. The remainder (n = 115) were cited less than 25 times. Whereas integrity, altruism, and service were infrequently assessed and most often in combination with additional constructs, global humanism, compassion, respect, and Figure 1 Trial flow for review. S16 Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Data Summary Organized by Constructs Citationsj (range) Articlesa Designb Methodc Instrumentd Perspectivee QNf QLg Mixedh Validityi Nationsk Integrity8–12 5 Cr (3) Lon (2) Survey (5) Int (1) Multi (1) All study specific 3 1 1 Hi (3) Mod (2) 170 (3–95) (range) 4 Commitment to excellence8,13–17 6 Cr (5) Lon (1) Survey (4) Obs (2) Reflect (1) Multi (1) All study specific Self (4) Invest (1) Peer (1) Multiple (1) Self (4) Faculty (1) SP (1) Peer (4) Multi (2) 5 1 0 Hi (2) Mod (4) 70 (3–21) 1 Compassion9,18–49 33 Cr (21) Lon (12) Survey (25) Int (2) Obs (7) Reflect (5) Multi (6) Study specific (12) PPOS (6) Self (25) Faculty (2) Patient (1) SP (3) Invest (8) Multi (6) 22 8 4 Hi (12) Mod (18) Low (3) 544 (0–104) 11 Altruism8,10,18,19,50–56 11 Cr (8) Lon (3) Survey (7) Int (2) Reflect (2) All study specific Self (7) Invest (3) Faculty (1) Peer (1) Multi (2) 7 2 2 Hi (4) Mod (6) Low (2) 207 (0–95) 5 Respect8,9,13,18–34,50,57–75 40 Cr (27) Lon (13) Survey (28) Obs (14) Reflect (5) Int (2) Multi (8) Study specific (18) PPOS (13) Doctor patient scale (3) Self (30) Invest (8) Faculty (2) Patient (1) Peer (1) Team (1) Multi (9) 27 8 5 Hi (17) Mod (18) Low (5) 1,003 (1–163) 12 Empathy20–26,35–44,51,57–62,76–147 96 Cr (66) Lon (30) Survey (86) Int (3) Obs (13) Reflect (6) Multi (14) JSE (49) Study specific (17) IRI (8) BEES (4) Self (87) Invest (9) SP (7) Faculty (6) Patient (1) Peer (2) Multi (17) 80 10 7 Hi (27) Mod (46) Low (23) 2,147 (0–165) 23 Review Paper Construct (Table continues) S17 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Table 1 4 388 (7–104) Hi (3) Mod (7) The articles (n = 155) represented data from 34 countries, with 56% (n = 87) occurring in North America. Seventy percent (n = 109) of articles considered a single construct, with 18% (n = 28) of articles considering two and 12% (n = 18) three or more constructs. Study quality Articles column is the number of articles included in the review addressing the specified construct. Design identifies how many studies in the category were cross-sectional (Cr) and how many were longitudinal (Lon). c Method indicates how many articles used surveys (Survey), interviews (Int), observation (Obs), reflection (Reflect), and combinations of these (Multi). d Instrument identifies published assessment tools used multiple times in the category and the number of tools developed for a single study (study specific). e Perspective indicates who completed the assessment, the student being assessed (self), a faculty evaluator (faculty), a peer, a standardized patient (SP), clinical team member(s) (team), the article author (invest), patient, and a combination of these (multi). f QN indicates the number of articles reporting only quantitative assessment. g QL indicates the number of articles reporting only qualitative assessment. h Mixed indicates the number of articles reporting both quantitative and qualitative assessments. i Validity indicates the number of categories of validity threats: 0 (Hi), 1 (Mod), 2 (Low). j Citations provides the total number of citations for the set of articles and the range of citations per article. k Nations indicates the number of nations represented in the set of articles for the specified construct. a S18 b 5 3 Self (6) Invest (5) Multi (1) Study specific (8) Survey (5) Reflect (2) Int (3) Obs (1) Multi (1) Cr (7) Lon (3) 10 Identity formation9,29,30,45,54,77,159–162 Cr (18) Lon (5) 23 Humanism11,14,15,18,20,28,35,45,52,53,56,77,78,149–158 Cr (2) Lon (2) 4 Service 14,27,76,148 empathy were assessed frequently and often independently of other constructs. The most prevalent assessment in this literature was some form of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy, a self-report survey. 2 8 304 (0–38) Hi (10) Mod (13) Self (7) Faculty (1) Peer (1) Invest (6) Team (1) Multi (6) Study specific (20) Survey (8) Reflect (6) Int (2) Obs (2) Multiple (3) 13 10 1 1 59 (5–45) Mod (4) 0 0 Study specific (2) PVIPS MSATU Survey (4) 4 All self Instrumentd Methodc Designb Articlesa Construct (Continued) Table 1 Perspectivee QNf QLg Mixedh Validityi Citationsj (range) Nationsk Review Paper Construct underrepresentation was identified as a threat to validity for 50% (n = 101) of assessment reports; construct-irrelevant variance was found for 28% (n = 56) of measurements. Both threats to validity were seen in 12.3% (n = 25) of all assessments. No threats to validity were coded in 36.2% (n = 73), whereas 51.5% (n = 104) were coded as having one category of threat. Examples of construct underrepresentation include using single observations as the basis for scoring a student on a construct and an instrument containing questions regarding students’ beliefs about the importance of physician empathy as a measure of the construct of empathy. Examples of situations leading to a threat of construct-irrelevant variance include poor interrater agreement and poor response rates. Synthesis Some assessments addressed multiple constructs; for instance, a rating scale completed by an SP might address compassion and respect. Thus, some articles are reported related to more than one construct. Integrity. An assessment of student integrity appeared in 3% (n = 5) of the total set of 155 articles. All of the 5 articles assessing integrity also assessed at least one additional construct, and 2 of the articles assessed more than three constructs. The assessments reported for integrity in these articles were all designed specifically for the study reported in the article; none used assessment tools with published psychometric data. Excellence. Four of the six articles assessing students’ commitment to clinical excellence also contained Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper assessments of additional constructs. The articles all (n = 6) reported study-specific assessments. Compassion. Compassion was assessed in 22% (n = 34) of the included articles. Selfreport surveys in cross-sectional designs were the modal approach of these articles. Assessments of emotional intelligence constituted 20% (n = 7) of the assessments of compassion, 6 of which also measured empathy. The most frequently used instrument for assessing compassion was the Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale,163 a measure of patient centeredness comprising two factors (caring and sharing), reported in 6 studies.26,28,30–32,34 Altruism. Altruism was assessed in 7% of the included articles (n = 11). This was accomplished primarily using self-report surveys developed specifically for the study (see Table 1 for details). Ten of the 11 articles included assessments of additional constructs associated with humanism. Respect. Respect was assessed in 26% (n = 40) of all included articles. Whereas 8 contained multiple assessment strategies, 17 used surveys. Most articles relied on self-report data. The most common instrument used for assessing respect was the Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale.163 Most of the studies were crosssectional and used quantitative measures (see Table 1 for details). Empathy. Empathy was the most commonly assessed construct, included in 62% (n = 96) of the articles. The articles represent work conducted in 23 countries (n = 51 conducted in the United States). The approach most commonly used was self-report survey. Seventy-three articles used only surveys, and an additional 8 combined survey with another approach. Just over 50% (n = 49) of the articles used a form of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy164 including versions in eight languages in addition to English. The next most commonly used instrument to assess empathy was the Interpersonal Reactivity Index165 in 5% (n = 8) of articles. Assessment tools developed specifically for the study reported and having no published psychometric data were used in 11% (n = 17) of the articles assessing empathy. Service. Assessments of service were reported in 2.5% (n = 4) of the articles; three of the four articles included additional humanism constructs from IECARES. The fourth article148 used the Physician Values in Practice Scale comprising scales for prestige, service, autonomy, lifestyle, management, and scholarly pursuits. Thus, none of the articles assessed only the construct of service. All of this small set of articles contained data collected in the United States. Humanism. Humanism was assessed broadly in 14% (n = 22) of the articles included in this review. Less than half (n = 8) of these used survey alone, and 45% (n = 10) used qualitative or mixed methods for assessment. These studies were conducted in seven countries, with 16 of the 23 conducted in the United States. Identity formation. Identity formation as a humanistic physician was assessed in 6% (n = 10) of the articles. Half of the set used survey assessments, and half used qualitative methods. Four of the five surveys were developed specifically for the study reported in the article. For the entire set of articles, 67.7% (n = 105) used only surveys as assessment tools, and 13.5% (n = 21) used multiple assessments. Likewise, 64.5% (n = 100) used assessments based solely on the perspective of the students (i.e., self-report), and 13.5% (n = 21) included assessments from multiple perspectives. Articles analyzing only quantitative data constituted 74.2% (n = 115), whereas 17.4% (n = 27) used a qualitative approach. Mixed methods were identified in 8.4% (n = 13). Designs were predominantly cross-sectional (69% [n = 107]), with only 31% (n = 48) employing a longitudinal approach. Discussion Analysis at both the level of assessment and article revealed a predominance of surveys in this literature on the assessment of humanism in undergraduate medical education. Notable exceptions to this pattern were for the constructs of respect and humanism. Articles assessing these two constructs used analysis of reflective writing and a combination of multiple methods more than other constructs examined in this review. Extending across instrumentation was a preponderance of quantitative measurement and cross- Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 sectional design. Although surveys are an efficient method for gathering information about large groups of students, they are vulnerable to the influences of social desirability bias. As we consider the implications for the assessment of humanism, it is necessary that we balance the use of surveys with other methods to check for congruence across methods to judge whether there may be bias resulting from social pressures to be humanistic. The work of Chen and colleagues135 comparing survey results with observed behavior found only a weak correlation. Assuming a long-term concern with student–patient interactions, medical educators must investigate whether the relationship between survey results and actual interaction is strong enough to warrant relying heavily on surveys as the current literature does. Some of the constructs embedded within humanism have very little representation in this literature; altruism and service have been reported relatively infrequently. It is not clear why empathy, compassion, and respect have been examined more frequently than other aspects of humanism. It may be a reflection of the availability of established assessment tools (e.g., the Jefferson Scale of Empathy). It is also possible that medical educators consider these attributes to be more amenable to educational intervention. The impact of this body of literature is reflected in geographic diversity as well as the large number of citations. It is a vibrant area of inquiry conducted in every region of the globe. Our need for human connection in health care transcends culture. This underscores the need for authors to be attentive to issues of validity. Although few articles were coded as having threats to validity in both categories (construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance), most assessments were identified as having at least one of these threats. Rarely did authors discuss validity unless the aim of the article was to provide psychometric data about an instrument. Limitations Our work represents an extensive review of the literature from a limited, albeit recent time period (January 2000–December 2013). We focused S19 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper our analysis on the tools and types of assessment methods employed, and we did not analyze the validity of the methodology related to the specific study questions. We included articles published only in English which may have restricted the representation of some constructs in our review. The analysis of articles we undertook focused specifically on work that described the assessment of medical students, thereby potentially limiting some of the assessment methods used. Assessments of physician humanism from the perspective of actual patients are more often reported for physicians in practice. Finally, we limited our analysis to articles specifically describing humanism. Many of the papers that we excluded from our analysis addressed parallel or overlapping concepts including professionalism, ethics, or communication skills. By using the IECARES framework as an organizing principle for this review, we accepted the assumptions that the constructs are indeed part of humanism and that there is benefit to examining the constructs independently in addition to a more holistic approach to humanism assessment. Implications for practice and future work We recommend that medical educators employ a programmatic approach166 to the assessment of humanism. As described by van der Vleuten and colleagues,167 this approach strengthens the validity of assessment by including multiple methods and assessments from multiple perspectives. This will provide opportunities to more fully capture the complexity of humanism and the constructs embedded therein. Humanism might be likened to a fine symphony, best appreciated with a full complement of instruments, melodies, and percussion. So might humanism best be understood with information from diverse perspectives with a balanced view of the full complement of IECARES constructs. We encourage diversifying assessment by including multiple perspectives of assessment. Self-report can differ from the report of a third party168 and both provide valuable information to students and faculty. In addition, we recommend that increased attention be given to validity issues in publications. Authors must be expected to provide validity evidence beyond previous S20 publication of an instrument. The use of instruments developed for a specific investigation was a common finding in this literature along with the adaptation of instruments without providing any evidence of the validity in the context used. Validity applies to the interpretation of test scores in a particular context, not to an instrument. Even instruments with published psychometric properties cannot be assumed to be valid in a different context or if modified in some way.7,166 Another gap in this body of literature that may be shaping our understanding of humanism in medical education is the paucity of longitudinal studies. Many of the studies coded as longitudinal in this review were of relatively brief time spans. We can expect that students mature over time and are shaped by cumulative experiences. Longitudinal investigations can provide valuable insight into the nuances of the development or possible loss of humanistic characteristics. Fostering humanism among medical students is essential to the quality of health care and foundational for the reform of medical education.169 We must maintain high standards for investigating and assessing this important and complex phenomenon to ensure that educational practice supports humanistic clinical practice. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Julie Trumble, MLIS, for her unfailing support with literature searching; Julia Buck, MS, for data manipulation and analysis; and the support staff in the Office of Educational Development for many forms of assistance provided throughout the project. Funding/Support: This project was made possible with a Mapping the Landscape, Journeying Together grant from the Arnold P. Gold Foundation Research Institute. Other disclosures: None reported. Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable. Previous presentations: Portions of this work were presented at the International Association of Medical Science Educators, San Diego, California, June 2015; Association of American Medical Colleges Southern Group on Educational Affairs regional annual meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 24–26, 2015; Annual Meeting of the Generalists in Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois, November 2014; 11th Annual Innovations in Health Science Education Conference, sponsored by the University of Texas Academy of Health Science Education, Austin, Texas, February 20, 2015. References 1 Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D. Defining professionalism in medical education: A systematic review. Med Teach. 2014;36:47–61. 2 Cohen JJ. Viewpoint: Linking professionalism to humanism: What it means, why it matters. Acad Med. 2007;82:1029–1032. 3 Arnold P. Gold Foundation. What Is Humanism in Health Care? http:// humanism-in-medicine.org/about-us/faqs/. Accessed July 22, 2015. 4 Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research? Med Educ. 2004;38:805–812. 5 Holden MD, Buck E, Luk J, et al. Professional identity formation: Creating a longitudinal framework through TIME (Transformation in Medical Education). Acad Med. 2015;90:761–767. 6 Downing SM. Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830–837. 7 Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity threats: Overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Med Educ. 2004;38:327–333. 8 Chen LP, Gregory JK, Camp CL, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Learning to lead: Self- and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure didactic block. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:210–217. 9 Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L. The disavowed curriculum: Understanding student’s reasoning in professionally challenging situations. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1015–1022. 10 Dyrbye LN, Massie FS Jr, Eacker A, et al. Relationship between burnout and professional conduct and attitudes among US medical students. JAMA. 2010;304:1173–1180. 11 De Valck C, Bensing J, Bruynooghe R. Medical students’ attitudes towards breaking bad news: An empirical test of the World Health Organization model. Psychooncology. 2001;10:398–409. 12 Vivian LM, Naidu CS, Keikelame MJ, Irlam J. Medical students’ experiences of professional lapses and patient rights abuses in a South African health sciences faculty. Acad Med. 2011;86:1282–1287. 13 Prislin MD, Lie D, Shapiro J, Boker J, Radecki S. Using standardized patients to assess medical students’ professionalism. Acad Med. 2001;76(10 suppl):S90–S92. 14 Dyrbye LN, Harper W, Moutier C, et al. A multi-institutional study exploring the impact of positive mental health on medical students’ professionalism in an era of high burnout. Acad Med. 2012;87:1024–1031. 15 McCormack WT, Lazarus C, Stern D, Small PA Jr. Peer nomination: A tool for identifying medical student exemplars in clinical competence and caring, evaluated at three medical schools. Acad Med. 2007;82:1033–1039. 16 Walling A, Montello M, Moser SE, Menikoff JA, Brink M. Which patients are most challenging for second-year medical students? Fam Med. 2004;36:710–714. 17 Epstein RM, Dannefer EF, Nofziger AC, et al. Comprehensive assessment of professional competence: The Rochester experiment. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:186–196. 18 Cohn FG, Shapiro J, Lie DA, Boker J, Stephens F, Leung LA. Interpreting values Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 conflicts experienced by obstetrics– gynecology clerkship students using reflective writing. Acad Med. 2009;84:587–596. Wear D, Zarconi J. Can compassion be taught? Let’s ask our students. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:948–953. Crow SM, O’Donoghue D, Vannatta JB, Thompson BM. Meeting the family: Promoting humanism in gross anatomy. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24:49–54. Carr SE. Emotional intelligence in medical students: Does it correlate with selection measures? Med Educ. 2009;43:1069–1077. Hauer KE, Boscardin C, Gesundheit N, Nevins A, Srinivasan M, Fernandez A. Impact of student ethnicity and patient-centredness on communication skills performance. Med Educ. 2010;44:653–661. Kalish R, Dawiskiba M, Sung YC, Blanco M. Raising medical student awareness of compassionate care through reflection of annotated videotapes of clinical encounters. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24:490. Braun UK, Gill AC, Teal CR, Morrison LJ. The utility of reflective writing after a palliative care experience: Can we assess medical students’ professionalism? J Palliat Med. 2013;16:1342–1349. Griffith CH 3rd, Wilson JF. The loss of student idealism in the 3rd-year clinical clerkships. Eval Health Prof. 2001;24:61–71. Ribeiro MM, Krupat E, Amaral CF. Brazilian medical students’ attitudes towards patientcentered care. Med Teach. 2007;29:e204–e208. Godkin MA, Savageau JA. The effect of a global multiculturalism track on cultural competence of preclinical medical students. Fam Med. 2001;33:178–186. Haidet P, Dains JE, Paterniti DA, Chang T, Tseng E, Rogers JC. Medical students’ attitudes toward patient-centered care and standardized patients’ perceptions of humanism: A link between attitudes and outcomes. Acad Med. 2001;76(10 suppl):S42–S44. Helmich E, Bolhuis S, Prins J, Laan R, Koopmans R. Emotional learning of undergraduate medical students in an early nursing attachment in a hospital or nursing home. Med Teach. 2011;33:e593–e601. Haidet P, Dains J, Paterniti D, et al. Medical student attitudes toward the doctor–patient relationship. Med Educ. 2002;36:568–574. Hirsh D, Gaufberg E, Ogur B, et al. Educational outcomes of the Harvard Medical School–Cambridge integrated clerkship: A way forward for medical education. Acad Med. 2012;87:643–650. Hall JA, Roter DL, Blanch DC, Frankel RM. Nonverbal sensitivity in medical students: Implications for clinical interactions. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1217–1222. Fine AG, Zhang T, Hwang SW. Attitudes towards homeless people among emergency department teachers and learners: A crosssectional study of medical students and emergency physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:112. Lee KH, Seow A, Luo N, Koh D. Attitudes towards the doctor–patient relationship: A prospective study in an Asian medical school. Med Educ. 2008;42:1092–1099. Rogers JC, Coutts L. Do students’ attitudes during preclinical years predict their humanism as clerkship students? Acad Med. 2000;75(10 suppl):S74–S77. 36 Rahimi-Madiseh M, Tavakol M, Dennick R, Nasiri J. Empathy in Iranian medical students: A preliminary psychometric analysis and differences by gender and year of medical school. Med Teach. 2010;32:e471–e478. 37 Stratton TD, Saunders JA, Elam CL. Changes in medical students’ emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20:279–284. 38 Walters K, Raven P, Rosenthal J, Russell J, Humphrey C, Buszewicz M. Teaching undergraduate psychiatry in primary care: The impact on student learning and attitudes. Med Educ. 2007;41:100–108. 39 Varkey P, Chutka DS, Lesnick TG. The aging game: Improving medical students’ attitudes toward caring for the elderly. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006;7:224–229. 40 Doherty EM, Cronin PA, Offiah G. Emotional intelligence assessment in a graduate entry medical school curriculum. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:38. 41 Imran N, Awais Aftab M, Haider II, Farhat A. Educating tomorrow’s doctors: A cross sectional survey of emotional intelligence and empathy in medical students of Lahore. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:710–714. 42 Austin EJ, Evans P, Goldwater R, Potter V. A preliminary study of emotional intelligence, empathy and exam performance in first year medical students. Pers Individ Dif. 2005;39:1395–1405. 43 Austin EJ, Evans P, Magnus B, O’Hanlon K. A preliminary study of empathy, emotional intelligence and examination performance in MBChB students. Med Educ. 2007;41:684– 689. 44 Borges NJ, Stratton TD, Wagner PJ, Elam CL. Emotional intelligence and medical specialty choice: Findings from three empirical studies. Med Educ. 2009;43:565–572. 45 Kasman DL, Fryer-Edwards K, Braddock CH 3rd. Educating for professionalism: Trainees’ emotional experiences on IM and pediatrics inpatient wards. Acad Med. 2003;78:730–741. 46 Batra P, Chertok JS, Fisher CE, Manseau MW, Manuelli VN, Spears J. The Columbia– Harlem Homeless Medical Partnership: A new model for learning in the service of those in medical need. J Urban Health. 2009;86:781–790. 47 MacLeod RD, Parkin C, Pullon S, Robertson G. Early clinical exposure to people who are dying: Learning to care at the end of life. Med Educ. 2003;37:51–58. 48 Todres M, Tsimtsiou Z, Stephenson A, Jones R. The emotional intelligence of medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study. Med Teach. 2010;32:e42–e48. 49 Price EG, Windish DM, Magaziner J, Cooper LA. Assessing validity of standardized patient ratings of medical students’ communication behavior using the Roter interaction analysis system. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70:3–9. 50 Pearson WG Jr, Hoagland TM. Measuring change in professionalism attitudes during the gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:12–16. 51 Gonçalves-Pereira M, Trancas B, Loureiro J, Papoila A, Caldas-de-Almeida JM. Empathy as related to motivations for medicine in a sample of first-year medical students. Psychol Rep. 2013;112:73–88. 52 Donnon T, Oddone-Paolucci E, Violato C. A predictive validity study of medical judgment Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 vignettes to assess students’ noncognitive attributes: A 3-year prospective longitudinal study. Med Teach. 2009;31:e148–e155. Couper ID, Worley PS. Meeting the challenges of training more medical students: Lessons from Flinders University’s distributed medical education program. Med J Aust. 2010;193:34–36. Maudsley G, Williams EM, Taylor DC. Junior medical students’ notions of a “good doctor” and related expectations: A mixed methods study. Med Educ. 2007;41:476–486. Crandall SJ, Reboussin BA, Michielutte R, Anthony JE, Naughton MJ. Medical students’ attitudes toward underserved patients: A longitudinal comparison of problem-based and traditional medical curricula. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12:71–86. Coulter ID, Wilkes M, Der-Martirosian C. Altruism revisited: A comparison of medical, law and business students’ altruistic attitudes. Med Educ. 2007;41:341–345. White LL, Gazewood JD, Mounsey AL. Teaching students behavior change skills: Description and assessment of a new motivational interviewing curriculum. Med Teach. 2007;29:e67–e71. DasGupta S, Charon R. Personal illness narratives: Using reflective writing to teach empathy. Acad Med. 2004;79:351–356. Wilkes M, Milgrom E, Hoffman JR. Towards more empathic medical students: A medical student hospitalization experience. Med Educ. 2002;36:528–533. Meitar D, Karnieli-Miller O, Eidelman S. The impact of senior medical students’ personal difficulties on their communication patterns in breaking bad news. Acad Med. 2009;84:1582–1594. Wimmers PF, Stuber ML. Assessing medical students’ empathy and attitudes towards patient-centered care with an existing clinical performance exam (OSCE). Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;2:1911–1913. Joekes K, Noble LM, Kubacki AM, Potts HW, Lloyd M. Does the inclusion of “professional development” teaching improve medical students’ communication skills? BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:41. Bombeke K, Symons L, Debaene L, De Winter B, Schol S, Van Royen P. Help, I’m losing patient-centredness! Experiences of medical students and their teachers. Med Educ. 2010;44:662–673. Robins LS, White CB, Alexander GL, Gruppen LD, Grum CM. Assessing medical students’ awareness of and sensitivity to diverse health beliefs using a standardized patient station. Acad Med. 2001;76:76–80. Noble LM, Kubacki A, Martin J, Lloyd M. The effect of professional skills training on patient-centredness and confidence in communicating with patients. Med Educ. 2007;41:432–440. Tsimtsiou Z, Kerasidou O, Efstathiou N, Papaharitou S, Hatzimouratidis K, Hatzichristou D. Medical students’ attitudes toward patient-centred care: A longitudinal survey. Med Educ. 2007;41:146–153. Yedidia MJ, Gillespie CC, Kachur E, et al. Effect of communications training on medical student performance. JAMA. 2003;290:1157–1165. Bombeke K, Van Roosbroeck S, De Winter B, et al. Medical students trained in S21 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 communication skills show a decline in patient-centred attitudes: An observational study comparing two cohorts during clinical clerkships. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:310– 318. Wahlqvist M, Gunnarsson RK, Dahlgren G, Nordgren S. Patient-centred attitudes among medical students: Gender and work experience in health care make a difference. Med Teach. 2010;32:e191–e198. Roberts LW, Geppert C, McCarty T, Obenshain SS. Evaluating medical students’ skills in obtaining informed consent for HIV testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:112–119. Cruess R, McIlroy JH, Cruess S, Ginsburg S, Steinert Y. The Professionalism Minievaluation Exercise: A preliminary investigation. Acad Med. 2006;81(10 suppl):S74–S78. Moore M. What do Nepalese medical students and doctors think about patientcentred communication? Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:38–43. Karnieli-Miller O, Taylor AC, Cottingham AH, Inui TS, Vu TR, Frankel RM. Exploring the meaning of respect in medical student education: An analysis of student narratives. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:1309–1314. Krupat E, Pelletier S, Alexander EK, Hirsh D, Ogur B, Schwartzstein R. Can changes in the principal clinical year prevent the erosion of students’ patient-centered beliefs? Acad Med. 2009;84:582–586. Shankar PR, Dubey AK, Subish P, Deshpande VY. Attitudes of first-year medical students towards the doctor patient relationship. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2006;45:196–203. Brazeau CM, Schroeder R, Rovi S, Boyd L. Relationship between medical student service and empathy. Acad Med. 2011;86(10 suppl):S42–S45. Hatem D, Ferrara E. Becoming a doctor: Fostering humane caregivers through creative writing. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;45:13–22. Ogur B, Hirsh D. Learning through longitudinal patient care-narratives from the Harvard Medical School–Cambridge integrated clerkship. Acad Med. 2009;84:844–850. Preusche I, Wagner-Menghin M. Rising to the challenge: Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the adapted German version of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy for Students (JSPE-S). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013;18:573–587. Michalec B. An assessment of medical school stressors on preclinical students’ levels of clinical empathy. Curr Psychol. 2010;29:210–221. Shapiro J, Rucker L, Boker J, Lie D. Point-of-view writing: A method for increasing medical students’ empathy, identification and expression of emotion, and insight. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2006;19:96–105. Handford C, Lemon J, Grimm MC, VollmerConna U. Empathy as a function of clinical exposure—reading emotion in the eyes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65159. DiLalla LF, Hull SK, Dorsey JK. Effect of gender, age, and relevant course work on attitudes toward empathy, patient spirituality, and physician wellness. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:165–170. S22 84 Newton BW, Barber L, Clardy J, Cleveland E, O’Sullivan P. Is there hardening of the heart during medical school? Acad Med. 2008;83:244–249. 85 Newton BW, Savidge MA, Barber L, et al. Differences in medical students’ empathy. Acad Med. 2000;75:1215. 86 Thomas MR, Dyrbye LN, Huntington JL, et al. How do distress and well-being relate to medical student empathy? A multicenter study. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:177–183. 87 Gillotti C, Thompson T, McNeilis K. Communicative competence in the delivery of bad news. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1011–1023. 88 Dereboy C, Harlak H, Gürel S, Gemalmaz A, Eskin M. Teaching empathy in medical education [in Turkish]. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2005;16:83–89. 89 Chen D, Lew R, Hershman W, Orlander J. A cross-sectional measurement of medical student empathy. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1434–1438. 90 Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, et al. The devil is in the third year: A longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med. 2009;84:1182–1191. 91 Brazeau CM, Schroeder R, Rovi S, Boyd L. Relationships between medical student burnout, empathy, and professionalism climate. Acad Med. 2010;85(10 suppl): S33–S36. 92 Costa P, Magalhães E, Costa MJ. A latent growth model suggests that empathy of medical students does not decline over time. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013;18:509–522. 93 Kožený J, Tišanská L, Höschl C. Assessing empathy among Czech medical students. A cross-sectional study. Cesk Psychol. 2013;57:246–254. 94 Chen DC, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH. Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout medical school. Med Teach. 2012;34:305–311. 95 Magalhães E, Salgueira AP, Costa P, Costa MJ. Empathy in senior year and first year medical students: A cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:52. 96 Bond AR, Mason HF, Lemaster CM, et al. Embodied health: The effects of a mind–body course for medical students. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:1–8. 97 Paro HB, Daud-Gallotti RM, Tibério IC, Pinto RM, Martins MA. Brazilian version of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: Psychometric properties and factor analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:73. 98 Hojat M, Gonnella J, Mangione S, et al. Empathy in medical students as related to academic performance, clinical competence and gender. Med Educ. 2002;36:522–527. 99 Torke AM, Quest TE, Kinlaw K, Eley JW, Branch WT Jr. A workshop to teach medical students communication skills and clinical knowledge about end-of-life care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5 pt 2):540–544. 100 Stratton TD, Elam CL, Murphy-Spencer AE, Quinlivan SL. Emotional intelligence and clinical skills: Preliminary results from a comprehensive clinical performance examination. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 suppl):S34–S37. 101 Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the Jefferson Scale of 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Physician Empathy. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:54. Shariat SV, Habibi M. Empathy in Iranian medical students: Measurement model of the Jefferson scale of empathy. Med Teach. 2013;35:e913–e918. Hojat M, Zuckerman M, Magee M, et al. Empathy in medical students as related to specialty interest, personality, and perceptions of mother and father. Pers Individ Dif. 2005;39:1205–1215. Lim BT, Moriarty H, Huthwaite M, Gray L, Pullon S, Gallagher P. How well do medical students rate and communicate clinical empathy? Med Teach. 2013;35:e946–e951. Dyrbye LN, Eacker AM, Harper W, et al. Distress and empathy do not drive changes in specialty preference among US medical students. Med Teach. 2012;34:e116–e122. Borges NJ, Kirkham K, Deardorff AS, Moore JA. Development of emotional intelligence in a team-based learning internal medicine clerkship. Med Teach. 2012;34:802–806. Winefield HR, Chur-Hansen A. Evaluating the outcome of communication skill teaching for entry-level medical students: Does knowledge of empathy increase? Med Educ. 2000;34:90–94. Shapiro J, Morrison E, Boker J. Teaching empathy to first year medical students: Evaluation of an elective literature and medicine course. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2004;17:73–84. Rabow MW, Wrubel J, Remen RN. Authentic community as an educational strategy for advancing professionalism: A national evaluation of the Healer’s Art course. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1422–1428. Hasan S, Al-Sharqawi N, Dashti F, et al. Level of empathy among medical students in Kuwait University, Kuwait. Med Princ Pract. 2013;22:385–389. Hojat M, Axelrod D, Spandorfer J, Mangione S. Enhancing and sustaining empathy in medical students. Med Teach. 2013;35:996–1001. Nunes P, Williams S, Sa B, Stevenson K. A study of empathy decline in students from five health disciplines during their first year of training. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:12–17. Quince TA, Parker RA, Wood DF, Benson JA. Stability of empathy among undergraduate medical students: A longitudinal study at one UK medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:90. Neumann M, Scheffer C, Tauschel D, Lutz G, Wirtz M, Edelhäuser F. Physician empathy: Definition, outcome-relevance and its measurement in patient care and medical education. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2012;29:Doc11. Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, Veloski J, Hojat M. Medical students’ self-reported empathy and simulated patients’ assessments of student empathy: An analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med. 2011;86:984–988. Rosenthal S, Howard B, Schlussel YR, et al. Humanism at heart: Preserving empathy in third-year medical students. Acad Med. 2011;86:350–358. Roh MS, Hahm BJ, Lee DH, Suh DH. Evaluation of empathy among Korean medical students: A cross-sectional study using the Korean Version of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy. Teach Learn Med. 2010;22:167–171. Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Review Paper 118 Van Winkle LJ, Fjortoft N, Hojat M. Impact of a workshop about aging on the empathy scores of pharmacy and medical students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76:9. 119 Magalhães E, Costa P, Costa MJ. Empathy of medical students and personality: Evidence from the Five-Factor Model. Med Teach. 2012;34:807–812. 120 Kliszcz J, Nowicka-Sauer K, Trzeciak B, Nowak P, Sadowska A. Empathy in health care providers—validation study of the Polish version of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. Adv Med Sci. 2006;51:219–225. 121 Hong M, Lee WH, Park JH, et al. Changes of empathy in medical college and medical school students: 1-year follow up study. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:122. 122 Lim BT, Moriarty H, Huthwaite M. “Beingin-role”: A teaching innovation to enhance empathic communication skills in medical students. Med Teach. 2011;33:e663–e669. 123 Pohl CA, Hojat M, Arnold L. Peer nominations as related to academic attainment, empathy, personality, and specialty interest. Acad Med. 2011;86:747–751. 124 Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, Veloski J, Hojat M. A comparison of medical students’ selfreported empathy with simulated patients’ assessments of the students’ empathy. Med Teach. 2011;33:388–391. 125 Munro D, Bore M, Powis D. Personality factors in professional ethical behaviour: Studies of empathy and narcissism. Aust J Psychol. 2005;57:49–60. 126 Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, et al. An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Med Educ. 2004;38:934–941. 127 Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Medical students’ understanding of empathy: A phenomenological study. Med Educ. 2012;46:306–316. 128 Shapiro J, Duke A, Boker J, Ahearn CS. Just a spoonful of humanities makes the medicine go down: Introducing literature into a family medicine clerkship. Med Educ. 2005;39:605–612. 129 Henry-Tillman R, Deloney LA, Savidge M, Graham CJ, Klimberg VS. The medical student as patient navigator as an approach to teaching empathy. Am J Surg. 2002;183:659–662. 130 Deladisma AM, Cohen M, Stevens A, et al; Association for Surgical Education. Do medical students respond empathetically to a virtual patient? Am J Surg. 2007;193:756–760. 131 Dehning S, Girma E, Gasperi S, Meyer S, Tesfaye M, Siebeck M. Comparative crosssectional study of empathy among first year and final year medical students in Jimma University, Ethiopia: Steady state of the heart and opening of the eyes. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:34. 132 Ozcan CT, Oflaz F, Bakir B. The effect of a structured empathy course on the students of a medical and a nursing school. Int Nurs Rev. 2012;59:532–538. 133 Kataoka HU, Koide N, Ochi K, Hojat M, Gonnella JS. Measurement of empathy among Japanese medical students: Psychometrics and score differences by gender and level of medical education. Acad Med. 2009;84:1192–1197. 134 Elam C, Stratton TD, Andrykowski MA. Measuring the emotional intelligence of medical school matriculants. Acad Med. 2001;76:507–508. 135 Chen DC, Pahilan ME, Orlander JD. Comparing a self-administered measure of empathy with observed behavior among medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:200–202. 136 Hojat M, Spandorfer J, Louis DZ, Gonnella JS. Empathic and sympathetic orientations toward patient care: Conceptualization, measurement, and psychometrics. Acad Med. 2011;86:989–995. 137 Bunn W, Terpstra J. Cultivating empathy for the mentally ill using simulated auditory hallucinations. Acad Psychiatry. 2009;33:457–460. 138 Ogle J. Empathy is related to clinical competence in medical care. Med Educ. 2013;47:824–831. 139 Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Empathy in UK medical students: Differences by gender, medical year and specialty interest. Educ Prim Care. 2011;22:297–303. 140 Hegazi I, Wilson I. Maintaining empathy in medical school: It is possible. Med Teach. 2013;35:1002–1008. 141 Airagnes G, Consoli SM, De Morlhon O, Galliot AM, Lemogne C, Jaury P. Appropriate training based on Balint groups can improve the empathic abilities of medical students: A preliminary study. J Psychosom Res. 2014;76:426–429. 142 Mortsiefer A, Immecke J, Rotthoff T, et al. Summative assessment of undergraduates’ communication competence in challenging doctor–patient encounters. Evaluation of the Düsseldorf CoMeD-OSCE. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:348–355. 143 Wen D, Ma X, Li H, Liu Z, Xian B, Liu Y. Empathy in Chinese medical students: Psychometric characteristics and differences by gender and year of medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:130. 144 Šter MP, Šter B, Petek D, Gorup EC. Validation of Slovenian version of Jefferson scale of empathy for students. Slovenian J Pub Health. 2014;53:89–100. 145 Caruso HM, Bernstein B. Evidence of declining empathy in third year osteopathic medical students. Int J Osteopath Med. 2014;17:22–27. 146 Karaoglu N, Seker M. Looking for winds of change with a PBL scenario about communication and empathy. Healthmed. 2011;5:515. 147 Kommalage M. Using videos to introduce clinical material: Effects on empathy. Med Educ. 2011;45:514–515. 148 Borges NJ, Hartung PJ. Stability of values during medical school. Med Teach. 2010;32:779–781. 149 Lee WN, Langiulli M, Mumtaz A, Peterson SJ. A comparison of humanistic qualities among medical students, residents, and faculty physicians in internal medicine. Heart Dis. 2003;5:380–383. 150 Bennett D, McCarthy M, O’Flynn S, Kelly M. In the eye of the beholder: Student perspectives on professional roles in practice. Med Educ. 2013;47:397–407. 151 Moyer CA, Arnold L, Quaintance J, et al. What factors create a humanistic doctor? A nationwide survey of fourth-year medical students. Acad Med. 2010;85:1800–1807. 152 Fernández-Olano C, Montoya-Fernandez J, Salinas-Sanchez A. Impact of clinical interview training on the empathy level of Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 11 / November Supplement 2015 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 medical students and medical residents. Med Teach. 2008;30:322–324. Kumagai A, White C, Schigelone A. The Family Centered Experience: Using patient narratives, student reflections, and discussions to teach about illness and care. Ann Behav Sci Med Educ. 2005;11:73–78. Kind T, Everett VR, Ottolini M. Learning to connect: Students’ reflections on doctor– patient interactions. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75:149–154. Lurie SJ, Nofziger AC, Meldrum S, Mooney C, Epstein RM. Temporal and group-related trends in peer assessment amongst medical students. Med Educ. 2006;40:840–847. Aspegren K, Lønberg-Madsen P. Which basic communication skills in medicine are learnt spontaneously and which need to be taught and trained? Med Teach. 2005;27:539–543. Shapiro J, Lie D. A comparison of medical students’ written expressions of emotion and coping and standardized patients’ ratings of student professionalism and communication skills. Med Teach. 2004;26:733–735. Zaharias G, Piterman L, Liddell M. Doctors and patients: Gender interaction in the consultation. Acad Med. 2004;79:148–155. Murinson BB, Klick B, Haythornthwaite JA, Shochet R, Levine RB, Wright SM. Formative experiences of emerging physicians: Gauging the impact of events that occur during medical school. Acad Med. 2010;85:1331–1337. Dyrbye LN, Harris I, Rohren CH. Early clinical experiences from students’ perspectives: A qualitative study of narratives. Acad Med. 2007;82:979–988. Patenaude J, Niyonsenga T, Fafard D. Changes in students’ moral development during medical school: A cohort study. CMAJ. 2003;168:840–844. Ratanawongsa N, Teherani A, Hauer KE. Third-year medical students’ experiences with dying patients during the internal medicine clerkship: A qualitative study of the informal curriculum. Acad Med. 2005;80:641–647. Trapp S, Stern M. Critical synthesis package: Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS). MedEdPORTAL. 2013. http:// dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.950. Accessed July 22, 2015. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, Mangione S, Veloksi JJ, Magee M. The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Further psychometric data and differences by gender and specialty at item level. Acad Med. 2002;77(10 suppl):S58–S60. Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Socl Psychol. 1983;44:113–126. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment and Kane’s validity perspective. Med Educ. 2012;46:38–48. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34:205–214. Hemmerdinger JM, Stoddart SD, Lilford RJ. A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:24. Cooke M, Irby DM, O’Brien BC. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2010. S23 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.