↓ Skip to main content

The quality of feedback during formative OSCEs depends on the tutors’ profile

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
The quality of feedback during formative OSCEs depends on the tutors’ profile
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0815-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noelle Junod Perron, Martine Louis-Simonet, Bernard Cerutti, Eva Pfarrwaller, Johanna Sommer, Mathieu Nendaz

Abstract

During their pre-clinical years, medical students are given the opportunity to practice clinical skills with simulated patients. During these formative objective structured clinical encounters (OSCEs), tutors from various backgrounds give feedback on students' history taking, physical exam, and communication skills. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the content and process of feedback varied according to the tutors' profile. During 2013, all 2(nd) and 3(rd) year medical students and tutors involved in three formative OSCEs were asked to fill in questionnaires, and their feedback sessions were audiotaped. Tutors were divided into two groups: 1) generalists: primary care, general internist and educationalist physicians 2) specialists involved in the OSCE related to their field of expertise. Outcome measures included the students' perceptions of feedback quality and utility and objective assessment of feedback quality. Participants included 251 medical students and 38 tutors (22 generalists and 16 specialists). Students self-reported that feedback was useful to improve history taking, physical exam and communication skills. Objective assessment showed that feedback content essentially focused on history taking and physical exam skills, and that elaboration on clinical reasoning or communication/professionalism issues was uncommon. Multivariate analyses showed that generalist tutors used more learner-centered feedback skills than specialist tutors (stimulating student's self-assessment (p < .001; making the student active in finding solutions, p < .001; checking student's understanding, p < .001) and elaborated more on communication and professionalism issues (p < 0.001). Specialists reported less training in how to provide feedback than generalists. These findings suggest that generalist tutors are more learner-centered and pay more attention to communication and professionalism during feedback than specialist tutors. Such differences may be explained by differences in feedback training but also by differences in practice styles and frames of references that should be further explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 196 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 22%
Unspecified 22 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 39 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 36%
Social Sciences 33 17%
Unspecified 22 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 42 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,968,282
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,872
of 3,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,395
of 308,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.