Literature DB >> 20143260

Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants' perceptions of the process.

Christopher J Watling1, Lorelei Lingard.   

Abstract

An essential goal of evaluation is to foster learning. Across the medical education spectrum, evaluation of clinical performance is dominated by subjective feedback to learners based on observation by expert supervisors. Research in non-medical settings has suggested that participants' perceptions of evaluation processes exert considerable influence over whether the feedback they receive actually facilitates learning, but similar research on perceptions of feedback in the medical setting has been limited. In this review, we examine the literature on recipient perceptions of feedback and how those perceptions influence the contribution that feedback makes to their learning. A focused exploration of relevant work on this subject in higher education and industrial psychology settings is followed by a detailed examination of available research on perceptions of evaluation processes in medical settings, encompassing both trainee and evaluator perspectives. We conclude that recipients' and evaluators' perceptions of an evaluation process profoundly affect the usefulness of the evaluation and the extent to which it achieves its goals. Attempts to improve evaluation processes cannot, therefore, be limited to assessment tool modification driven by reliability and validity concerns, but must also take account of the critical issue of feedback reception and the factors that influence it. Given the unique context of clinical performance evaluation in medicine, a research agenda is required that seeks to more fully understand the complexity of the processes of giving, receiving, interpreting, and using feedback as a basis for real progress toward meaningful evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20143260     DOI: 10.1007/s10459-010-9223-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract        ISSN: 1382-4996            Impact factor:   3.853


  30 in total

1.  No difference in learning retention in manikin-based simulation based on role.

Authors:  Dominic Giuliano; Marion McGregor Dc
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2015-09-14

2.  Barriers and Facilitators to Effective Feedback: A Qualitative Analysis of Data From Multispecialty Resident Focus Groups.

Authors:  Shalini T Reddy; Matthew H Zegarek; H Barrett Fromme; Michael S Ryan; Sarah-Anne Schumann; Ilene B Harris
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-06

3.  Feedback Credibility in a Formative Postgraduate Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Effects of Examiner Type.

Authors:  Lynfa Stroud; Matthew Sibbald; Denyse Richardson; Heather McDonald-Blumer; Rodrigo B Cavalcanti
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2018-04

4.  Reimagining Feedback for the Milestones Era.

Authors:  Andem Ekpenyong; Marygrace Zetkulic; Laura Edgar; Eric S Holmboe
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-04-23

5.  Workplace-based assessments of entrustable professional activities in a psychiatry core clerkship: an observational study.

Authors:  Severin Pinilla; Alexandra Kyrou; Stefan Klöppel; Werner Strik; Christoph Nissen; Sören Huwendiek
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 6.  Confounding factors in using upward feedback to assess the quality of medical training: a systematic review.

Authors:  Anli Yue Zhou; Paul Baker
Journal:  J Educ Eval Health Prof       Date:  2014-08-13

7.  Feedback in Medical Education: A Critical Appraisal.

Authors:  Joshua G Kornegay; Aaron Kraut; David Manthey; Rodney Omron; Holly Caretta-Weyer; Gloria Kuhn; Sandra Martin; Lalena M Yarris
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2017-03-22

8.  Quality of written narrative feedback and reflection in a modified mini-clinical evaluation exercise: an observational study.

Authors:  Elisabeth A M Pelgrim; Anneke W M Kramer; Henk G A Mokkink; Cees P M Van der Vleuten
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  An exploratory study into the impact and acceptability of formatively used progress testing in postgraduate obstetrics and gynaecology.

Authors:  Marja G K Dijksterhuis; Lambert W T Schuwirth; Didi D M Braat; Fedde Scheele
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2013-06

10.  Surgical resident accuracy in predicting their ABSITE score.

Authors:  LaShondria Simpson-Camp; Edward A Meister; Stephen Kavic
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.