PURPOSE: Medical students receive feedback during clerkships from many different sources: attendings, residents, paramedics, other clerks and even patients. Not all feedback providers have similar impact on learning. One characteristic that is believed to have impact is their credibility to the recipient. This study investigates the effects of feedback provider credibility on medical student satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance with a trained skill. METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled between-subjects design was used, with feedback provider credibility (high-low) as independent variable and examination of hearing abilities as the task. First year medical students' (n = 68) satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance were the dependent variables and were measured both directly after the intervention and after a three-week delay. RESULTS: Credibility did not significantly affect immediate or delayed self-efficacy. Students receiving feedback from a high-credibility source were more satisfied with the feedback. They did not perform significantly better immediately after the feedback intervention, but did so three weeks after the intervention. High credibility was associated with a perception of a negative feedback message and an unsocial feedback provider. CONCLUSIONS:Feedback provider credibility impacts satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance. If feedback is not effective in clinical settings, feedback providers may reconsider their credibility.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Medical students receive feedback during clerkships from many different sources: attendings, residents, paramedics, other clerks and even patients. Not all feedback providers have similar impact on learning. One characteristic that is believed to have impact is their credibility to the recipient. This study investigates the effects of feedback provider credibility on medical student satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance with a trained skill. METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled between-subjects design was used, with feedback provider credibility (high-low) as independent variable and examination of hearing abilities as the task. First year medical students' (n = 68) satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance were the dependent variables and were measured both directly after the intervention and after a three-week delay. RESULTS: Credibility did not significantly affect immediate or delayed self-efficacy. Students receiving feedback from a high-credibility source were more satisfied with the feedback. They did not perform significantly better immediately after the feedback intervention, but did so three weeks after the intervention. High credibility was associated with a perception of a negative feedback message and an unsocial feedback provider. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback provider credibility impacts satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance. If feedback is not effective in clinical settings, feedback providers may reconsider their credibility.