Back

Development and Feasibility of a Communication Accommodation Training Module for Health Profession Students

Rothermich, K.; Clark-Stallkamp, R.; Baker-Iyore, R. P.; Cuatico, C.; Lee, J. G. L.; Bobb, S. C.

2026-10-19 medical education
10.64898/2026.10.16.26365768 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: Health professions students often receive limited training on how to adjust their communication for patients whose first language is not English (LX), despite the risks for diagnosis, treatment, and patient trust. Based on Communication Accommodation Theory, we developed a brief module to improve students' awareness and knowledge of strategic communication adjustments for LX patients. Methods: We tested feasibility in a single-group, pre-post pilot study guided by the Kirkpatrick framework with undergraduate (n=22) and graduate (n=41) speech-language pathology and psychology students in Massachusetts and North Carolina. The module included instructional content, video and audio examples, interactive activities, and a podcast. Learning was assessed with knowledge checks, and self-reported facilitative and resistant accommodation with the Communication Accommodation Behavior Scale (CABS). After training, students rated their confidence and likelihood of using accommodation strategies. Results: At both sites, facilitative accommodation increased and resistant accommodation decreased significantly, with a larger decrease at the undergraduate site. Knowledge-check accuracy was high at both time points, suggesting a ceiling effect. Students reported moderate- to-high confidence in adapting their speech and high likelihood of using a learned strategy in future clinical encounters. Conclusions: A brief module can be feasibly delivered across institutions and is associated with short-term improvements in self-reported communication accommodation. Practice implications: We recommend future work evaluate whether these changes translate into clinical behavior long-term and refine knowledge-check items to better capture learning gains.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.