OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the factors that determine provision of feedback to students following mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) assessments. METHODS: We carried out a pilot study of all final year medical students at the University of Aberdeen between November 2005 and June 2006. The study involved 396 mini-CEX encounters (173 students and 105 assessors). We retrospectively analysed the components of feedback recorded on the marking sheets. Each component of feedback was coded as a binary response (feedback recorded or not). Logistic regression was used to determine the degree and significance of the factors that influenced feedback. Specialty block, range of marks, assessor group and assessor satisfaction were entered into the analysis using SPSS Version 14. RESULTS: The provision of feedback by our assessors was poor. In 22.7% of cases, positive features were not identified; in 28.2% of cases, no suggestions for development were highlighted; in 49.7% of cases, no action plan was formulated. Assessors who gave a wider range of scores for the specific skill domains were more likely to record areas for development and action plans. Specialty block influenced feedback on areas for development. Suggesting an action plan was significantly associated with assessor group, and academic trainees were the most consistent providers of feedback. Assessor satisfaction was significantly associated with highlighting 'anything especially good'. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors were associated with the provision of feedback in our cohort. Assessor training may address this variability. However, this would limit the diversity of assessors, which may be undesirable. More research is required on assessor training and recruitment.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the factors that determine provision of feedback to students following mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) assessments. METHODS: We carried out a pilot study of all final year medical students at the University of Aberdeen between November 2005 and June 2006. The study involved 396 mini-CEX encounters (173 students and 105 assessors). We retrospectively analysed the components of feedback recorded on the marking sheets. Each component of feedback was coded as a binary response (feedback recorded or not). Logistic regression was used to determine the degree and significance of the factors that influenced feedback. Specialty block, range of marks, assessor group and assessor satisfaction were entered into the analysis using SPSS Version 14. RESULTS: The provision of feedback by our assessors was poor. In 22.7% of cases, positive features were not identified; in 28.2% of cases, no suggestions for development were highlighted; in 49.7% of cases, no action plan was formulated. Assessors who gave a wider range of scores for the specific skill domains were more likely to record areas for development and action plans. Specialty block influenced feedback on areas for development. Suggesting an action plan was significantly associated with assessor group, and academic trainees were the most consistent providers of feedback. Assessor satisfaction was significantly associated with highlighting 'anything especially good'. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors were associated with the provision of feedback in our cohort. Assessor training may address this variability. However, this would limit the diversity of assessors, which may be undesirable. More research is required on assessor training and recruitment.
Authors: Mirjam T van Lohuizen; Jan B M Kuks; Elisabeth A van Hell; A N Raat; Roy E Stewart; Janke Cohen-Schotanus Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2010-03-28 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: David A Cook; Denise M Dupras; Thomas J Beckman; Kris G Thomas; V Shane Pankratz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Charlotte E Rees; Jennifer A Cleland; Ashley Dennis; Narcie Kelly; Karen Mattick; Lynn V Monrouxe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sabrina Lau Yanting; Annushkha Sinnathamby; DaoBo Wang; Moses Tan Mong Heng; Justin Leong Wen Hao; Shuh Shing Lee; Su Ping Yeo; Dujeepa D Samarasekera Journal: Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi Date: 2016-07-02