IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0038973.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-Assessed Competency at Working with a Medical Interpreter Is Not Associated with Knowledge of Good Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Hudelson
  • Thomas Perneger
  • Véronique Kolly
  • Noëlle Junod Perron

Abstract

Background: Specific knowledge and skills are needed to work effectively with an interpreter, but most doctors have received limited training. Self-assessed competency may not accurately identify training needs. Purposes: The purpose of this study is to explore the association between self-assessed competency at working with an interpreter and the ability to identify elements of good practice, using a written vignette. Methods: A mailed questionnaire was sent to 619 doctors and medical students in Geneva, Switzerland. Results: 58.6% of respondents considered themselves to be highly competent at working with a professional interpreter, but 22% failed to mention even one element of good practice in response to the vignette, and only 39% could name more than one. There was no association between self-rated competency and number of elements mentioned. Conclusions: Training efforts should challenge the assumption that working with an interpreter is intuitive. Evaluation of clinicians' ability to work with an interpreter should not be limited to self-ratings. In the context of large-scale surveys, written vignettes may provide a simple method for identifying knowledge of good practice and topics requiring further training.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Hudelson & Thomas Perneger & Véronique Kolly & Noëlle Junod Perron, 2012. "Self-Assessed Competency at Working with a Medical Interpreter Is Not Associated with Knowledge of Good Practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-6, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0038973
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0038973
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0038973&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0038973?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0038973. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.