CONTEXT: Multisource feedback (MSF) is a type of formative assessment intended to guide learning and performance change. However, in earlier research, some doctors questioned its validity and did not use it for improvement, raising questions about its consequential validity (i.e. its ability to produce intended outcomes related to learning and change). The purpose of this qualitative study was to increase understanding of the consequential validity of MSF by exploring how doctors used their feedback and the conditions influencing this use. METHODS: We used interviews with open-ended questions. We purposefully recruited volunteer participants from 2 groups of family doctors who participated in a pilot assessment of MSF: those who received high (n = 25) and those who received average/lower (n = 44) scores. RESULTS: Respondents included 12 in the higher- and 16 in the average/lower-scoring groups. Fifteen interpreted their feedback as positive (i.e. confirming current practice) and did not make changes. Thirteen interpreted feedback as negative in 1 or more domains (i.e. not confirming their practice and indicating need for change). Seven reported making changes. The most common changes were in patient and team communication; the least common were in clinical competence. Positive influences upon change included receiving specific feedback consistent with other sources of feedback from credible reviewers who were able to observe the subjects. These reviewers were most frequently patients. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest circumstances that may contribute to low consequential validity of MSF for doctors. Implications for practice include enhancing procedural credibility by ensuring reviewers' ability to observe respective behaviours, enhancing feedback usefulness by increasing its specificity, and considering the use of more objective measures of clinical competence.
CONTEXT: Multisource feedback (MSF) is a type of formative assessment intended to guide learning and performance change. However, in earlier research, some doctors questioned its validity and did not use it for improvement, raising questions about its consequential validity (i.e. its ability to produce intended outcomes related to learning and change). The purpose of this qualitative study was to increase understanding of the consequential validity of MSF by exploring how doctors used their feedback and the conditions influencing this use. METHODS: We used interviews with open-ended questions. We purposefully recruited volunteer participants from 2 groups of family doctors who participated in a pilot assessment of MSF: those who received high (n = 25) and those who received average/lower (n = 44) scores. RESULTS: Respondents included 12 in the higher- and 16 in the average/lower-scoring groups. Fifteen interpreted their feedback as positive (i.e. confirming current practice) and did not make changes. Thirteen interpreted feedback as negative in 1 or more domains (i.e. not confirming their practice and indicating need for change). Seven reported making changes. The most common changes were in patient and team communication; the least common were in clinical competence. Positive influences upon change included receiving specific feedback consistent with other sources of feedback from credible reviewers who were able to observe the subjects. These reviewers were most frequently patients. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest circumstances that may contribute to low consequential validity of MSF for doctors. Implications for practice include enhancing procedural credibility by ensuring reviewers' ability to observe respective behaviours, enhancing feedback usefulness by increasing its specificity, and considering the use of more objective measures of clinical competence.
Authors: France Légaré; Hilary Bekker; Sophie Desroches; Renée Drolet; Mary C Politi; Dawn Stacey; Francine Borduas; Francine M Cheater; Jacques Cornuz; Marie-France Coutu; Nora Ferdjaoui-Moumjid; Frances Griffiths; Martin Härter; André Jacques; Tanja Krones; Michel Labrecque; Claire Neely; Charo Rodriguez; Joan Sargeant; Janet S Schuerman; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Renée E Stalmeijer; Diana H J M Dolmans; Ineke H A P Wolfhagen; Wim G Peters; Lieve van Coppenolle; Albert J J A Scherpbier Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 3.853