BACKGROUND: Self-assessment and feedback are important elements for improving performance. However, coordinating their content remains elusive. PURPOSE: The purpose is to determine whether student self-assessment and preceptor feedback correlate with course outcomes and whether preceptor feedback informs student self-assessment. METHODS: Our students generate initial and midterm goals and preceptors provide midterm feedback. We coded goals and feedback as clinical subsets, knowledge, career oriented, and attitudinal. We assessed associations with exams and evaluations using correlations, chi-square, and comparisons of means. RESULTS: Students usually listed clinical goals (72%), whereas preceptors noted attitudes (50%). Students' self-assessments had little association with exams, evaluations, or preceptor feedback. Students cited by preceptors for clinical strengths scored higher on exams (77.2 vs. 72.7, p < .01). Those cited for knowledge received more honors and high pass (78 vs. 60%, p = .05) evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Students and preceptors emphasize different aspects of performance. Student self-assessments were not associated with outcomes, but preceptor feedback was. Student self-assessment seemed resistant to feedback.
BACKGROUND: Self-assessment and feedback are important elements for improving performance. However, coordinating their content remains elusive. PURPOSE: The purpose is to determine whether student self-assessment and preceptor feedback correlate with course outcomes and whether preceptor feedback informs student self-assessment. METHODS: Our students generate initial and midterm goals and preceptors provide midterm feedback. We coded goals and feedback as clinical subsets, knowledge, career oriented, and attitudinal. We assessed associations with exams and evaluations using correlations, chi-square, and comparisons of means. RESULTS: Students usually listed clinical goals (72%), whereas preceptors noted attitudes (50%). Students' self-assessments had little association with exams, evaluations, or preceptor feedback. Students cited by preceptors for clinical strengths scored higher on exams (77.2 vs. 72.7, p < .01). Those cited for knowledge received more honors and high pass (78 vs. 60%, p = .05) evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Students and preceptors emphasize different aspects of performance. Student self-assessments were not associated with outcomes, but preceptor feedback was. Student self-assessment seemed resistant to feedback.