Table 2.
Percent Frequency of Response Categories Derived from Written Comments for 1999–2000 Academic Year
| Frequency of Responses by Category, % | ||
|---|---|---|
| Response Categories | First-year Students | Second-year Students |
| What did you learn from the workshop? | ||
| Interviewing skills and techniques | 50 | 41 |
| Relationship building/psychosocial perspectives | 30 | 36 |
| Fund of knowledge | 20 | 23 |
| How did SP contribute to teaching? | ||
| Provided place for experimentation, analysis, and critique of interviewing skills | 44 | 37 |
| Provided “real life” context | 30 | 16 |
| Provided opportunity to give feedback | 15 | 26 |
| Allowed opportunity to address psychosocial/relationship issues | 11 | 21 |
| Strengths of workshop | ||
| Standardized patients | 29 | 44 |
| Role play | 20 | NA |
| Small-group discussion | 18 | 11 |
| Ability to practice interviewing skills | 15 | 28 |
| Large-group discussion | 9 | — |
| Faculty involvement/commitment | 9 | — |
| Address psychosocial issues | — | 17 |
| How can workshop be improved? | ||
| Have smaller groups | 27 | 25 |
| Have workshops more often | 23 | 31 |
| Have more standardized patients | 17 | 19 |
| Reduce/improve lecture components | 17 | 12 |
| No need for improvement | 9 | — |
| More time to participate with SPs | 7 | 13 |
NA, not applicable.