• 1. Deutsch M. Trust and suspicion. J Conflict Resolut 1958; 2:265279.

  • 2. Larzelere R, Huston T. The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J Marriage Fam 1980; 42:595604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Davis JH, Schoorman FD, Mayer RC, et al. The trust general manager and business unit performance: empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strateg Manage J 2000; 21:563576.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Merritt SM, Ilgen DR. Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum Factors 2008; 50:194210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Robinson RV, Jackson EF. Is trust in others declining in America? An age-period-cohort analysis. Soc Sci Res 2001; 30:117145.

  • 6. Putnam RD. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. Polit Sci Polit 1995; 28:664683.

  • 7. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

  • 8. Wolf CA, Lloyd JW, Black JR. An examination of US consumer pet-related and veterinary service expenditures, 1980–2005. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 233:404413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, et al. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q 2001; 79:613639.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Pearson SD, Raeke LH. Patient's trust in physicians: many theories, few measures, and little data. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15:509513.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Trachtenburg F, Dugan E, Hall MA. How patients' trust relates to their involvement in medical care. J Fam Pract 2005; 54:344352.

  • 12. Kerse N, Buetow S, Mainous AG, et al. Physician-patient relationship and medication compliance: a primary care investigation. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2:455461.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Molassiotis A, Morris K, Truman I. The importance of the patient-clinician relationship in adherence to antiretroviral medication. Intl J Nurs Pract 2007; 13:370376.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Jansen J, Steuten CDM, Renes RJ, et al. Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: effective communication on udder health. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93:12961306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. American Animal Hospital Association. Compliance: taking quality care to the next level (executive summary), 2009. Available at www.aahanet.org/protected/ComplianceExecutiveSummary0309.pdf. Accessed Sep 24, 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Albers JW, Cavanaugh MT. 2010 state of the industry report. Available at trends.aahanet.org/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?site=trends&webcode=newsdetail&articleKey=4701b5ac-0b87-4885-b96f-70db5396bde0. Accessed Sep 24, 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 1995; 20:709734.

  • 18. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, et al. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 1998; 23:393404.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Rotter JB. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J Pers 1967; 35:615665.

  • 20. Chiles TH, McMackin JF. Integrating variable risk preference, trust, and transaction cost economics. Acad Manage Rev 1996; 21:7399.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Colquitt JA, Scott, BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol 2007; 92:900927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Mayer RC, Davis JH. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84:123136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino, AJ. Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 2006.

  • 24. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and application. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 1995; 7699.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, et al. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Snijder T, Bosker, R. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage, 1999.

  • 28. Shaw JR, Bonnett BN, Adams CL, et al. Veterinarian-client-patient communication patterns used during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 228:714721.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Shaw JR, Adams CL, Bonnett BN, et al. Veterinarian-client-patient communication during wellness appointments versus appointments related to a health problem in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 233:15761586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Coe JB, Adams CL, Bonnett BN. A focus group study of veterinarians' and pet owners' perceptions of veterinarian-client communication in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 233:10721080.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Shaw JR, Adams CL, Bonnett BN, et al. Use of the Roter interaction analysis system to analyze veterinarian-client-patient communication in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 225:222229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Naidoo LJ, Lord RG. Speech imagery and perceptions of charisma: the mediating role of positive affect. Leadersh Q 2008; 19:283296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. McLaughlin ML, Cody MJ, O'Hair HD. The management of failure events: some contextual determinants of accounting behaviors. Hum Commun Res 1983; 9:208224.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Burgoon JK, Dillman L, Stern LA. Adaptation in dyadic interaction: defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Commun Theory 1993; 3:295316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Fleishman EA. Twenty years of consideration and structure. In: Fleishman EA, Hunt JG, eds. Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973; 137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Bass BM. Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press, 1990.

  • 37. Gilliland SW. The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective. Acad Manage Rev 1993; 18:694734.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38. Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 232:531540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39. Beck AM, Katcher AH. Future directions in human-animal bond research. Am Behav Sci 2003; 47:7993.

  • 40. AVMA. U.S. pet ownership and demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, Ill: AVMA, 2007.

  • 41. Elmore RG. The lack of racial diversity in veterinary medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 222:2426.

  • 42. Zucker LG. Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol 8. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 1986; 53111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43. Pearce JL, Branyiczki I, Bigley GA. Insufficient bureaucracy: trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organ Sci 2000; 11:148162.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44. McGrath JE. Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas. In: McGrath JE, Martin J, Kulka RA, eds. Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage, 1986; 69102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45. Adams CL, Ladner LD. Implementing a simulated client program: bridging the gap between theory and practice. J Vet Med Educ 2004; 31:138145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46. Nogueira Borden LJ, Adams CL, Bonnett BN, et al. Use of the measure of patient-centered communication to analyze euthanasia discussions in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 237:12751287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47. Nogueria Borden LJ, Adams CL, Ladner LD. The use of standardized clients in research in the veterinary clinical setting. J Vet Med Educ 2008; 35:420430.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

A measure of and predictors for veterinarian trust developed with veterinary students in a simulated companion animal practice

James A. Grand PhD1, James W. Lloyd DVM, PhD2, Daniel R. Ilgen PhD3, Sarah Abood DVM, PhD4, and Ioana M. Sonea DMV, PhD5
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Psychology, College of Social Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
  • | 2 Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
  • | 3 Department of Psychology, College of Social Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
  • | 4 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
  • | 5 Department of Pathobiology and Diagnostic Investigation, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Abstract

Objective—To gain a better understanding of the role of interpersonal trust in veterinarian-client interactions during routine health-care visits, develop a measure of trust uniquely suited to the context of veterinary medicine, and interpret the actions, beliefs, and perceptions that capture client trust toward veterinarians.

Design—Correlational study.

Sample—103 veterinary students and 19 standardized clients with pets from a college of veterinary medicine at a large public Midwestern university.

Procedures—A measure of trust specific to veterinarian-client interactions was constructed on the basis of preexisting conceptualizations of the construct and administered to veterinary students and standardized clients following interactions in 2 medical scenarios in a high-fidelity simulated animal health clinic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques were used to validate the measure of trust, and hierarchic linear modeling was used to explore indicators of standardized client trust perceptions in one of the scenarios.

Results—Factor analysis revealed that the measure captured 2 perceptions indicative of trust in veterinary contexts: professionalism and technical candor. Students who had behaviors reflecting these factors as well as those who were perceived as more technically competent were seen as more trustworthy by standardized clients.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The development of trustworthy relationships between clients and veterinarians is important to the continued growth and success of the profession. By identifying characteristics of veterinarian trustworthiness and developing related measurement tools, proactive approaches to monitoring veterinarian-client relations can be implemented and incorporated into veterinary training and practice programs to identify areas for improvement.

Abstract

Objective—To gain a better understanding of the role of interpersonal trust in veterinarian-client interactions during routine health-care visits, develop a measure of trust uniquely suited to the context of veterinary medicine, and interpret the actions, beliefs, and perceptions that capture client trust toward veterinarians.

Design—Correlational study.

Sample—103 veterinary students and 19 standardized clients with pets from a college of veterinary medicine at a large public Midwestern university.

Procedures—A measure of trust specific to veterinarian-client interactions was constructed on the basis of preexisting conceptualizations of the construct and administered to veterinary students and standardized clients following interactions in 2 medical scenarios in a high-fidelity simulated animal health clinic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques were used to validate the measure of trust, and hierarchic linear modeling was used to explore indicators of standardized client trust perceptions in one of the scenarios.

Results—Factor analysis revealed that the measure captured 2 perceptions indicative of trust in veterinary contexts: professionalism and technical candor. Students who had behaviors reflecting these factors as well as those who were perceived as more technically competent were seen as more trustworthy by standardized clients.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The development of trustworthy relationships between clients and veterinarians is important to the continued growth and success of the profession. By identifying characteristics of veterinarian trustworthiness and developing related measurement tools, proactive approaches to monitoring veterinarian-client relations can be implemented and incorporated into veterinary training and practice programs to identify areas for improvement.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Grand (grandjam12@gmail.com).