Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: A meta-review

Medical Education

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 658-673

  van de Ridder, J M Monica ^a   Mcgaghie, William C ^b   Stokking, Karel M ^c   ten Cate, Olle T J ^d  

^a ALBERT SCHWEITZER HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; META ANALYSIS; MOTIVATION; SELF CONCEPT; STANDARDS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EDUCATION, MEDICAL; FEEDBACK; GOALS; HUMANS; LEARNING; SELF CONCEPT; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84930853898     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12744     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. van de Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ 2008;42:189-97.
2. Ilgen DR, Barnes Farrell JL, McKellin DB. Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: what has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1993;54 (3):321-68.
3. Smither JW, London M, Reilly RR. Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings Pers Psychol 2005;58 (1):33-66.
4. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 2008;78 (1):153-89.
5. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77 (1):81-112.
6. Cusella LP. Feedback, motivation and performance. In: Porter F, Jablin F, Putnam L, Roberts K, eds. Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 1987;624-678.
7. Vollmeyer R, Rheinberg F. Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 2006;18:239-53.
8. Kluger AN, DeNisi A. Effects of feedback intervention on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996;119 (2):254-84.
9. Dornan T. Experience-based learning: learning clinical medicine in workplaces. PhD thesis; University of Maastricht, Maastricht 2006.
10. Irby DM. Teaching and learning in ambulatory care settings: a thematic review of the literature. Acad Med 1995;70 (10):898-931.
11. Bowen JL, Irby DM. Assessing quality and costs of education in the ambulatory setting: a review of the literature. Acad Med 2002;77 (7):621-80.
12. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach 2007;29 (9):855-71.
13. McGee SR, Irby DM. Teaching in the outpatient clinic. Practical tips. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12 (Suppl 2):34-40.
14. Hamilton KE, Coates V, Kelly B, Boore JRP, Cundell JH, McFetridge B, McGonigle M, Sinclair M. Performance assessment in health care providers: a critical review of evidence and current practice. J Nurs Manag 2007;15 (8):773-91.
15. Irby DM, Wilkerson L. Teaching rounds. Teaching when time is limited. BMJ 2008;336 (7640):384-7.
16. Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 2006;28 (2):117-28.
17. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O' Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;6:CD000259.
18. Clement DA, Frandsen KD. On conceptual and empirical treatments of feedback in human communication. Commun Monogr 1976;43 (1):11-28.
19. Frandsen KD, Millis MA. On conceptual, theoretical and empirical treatments of feedback in human communication: fifteen years later. Commun Rep 1993;6 (2):79-91.
20. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor SM. Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organisations. J Appl Psychol 1979;64 (4):349-71.
21. Richardson GP. Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications 1999.
22. Watzlawick P, Helmick Beavin J, Jackson DD. Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York, NY: WW Norton & Co. 1967.
23. Johnson W. People in Quandaries. The Semantics of Personal Adjustment. New York, NY: Harper & Row 1946.
24. Johnson W. Speech and personality. In: Bryson L, ed. The Communication of Ideas. A Series of Addresses. New York, NY: Cooper Square Publishers 1964;84-102
25. Lasswell HD. The structure and function of communication in society. In: Bryson L, ed. The Communication of Ideas. A Series of Addresses. New York, NY: Cooper Square Publishers 1964;37-51
26. Lasswell HD. Describing the contents of communications. In: Smith BL, Lasswell HD, Casey RD, eds. Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion. A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1946;74-79
27. Lasswell HD. Describing the effects of communications. In: Smith BL, Lasswell HD, Casey RD, eds. Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion. A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1946;95-117
28. Mory EH. Feedback research revisited. In: Jonassen DH, ed. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2004;745-784
29. Gallagher JJ. Teaching and learning: new models. Ann Rev Psychol 1994;45:171-95.
30. Fenner DE. Avoiding pitfalls: lessons in surgical teaching. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2006;33 (2):333-42.
31. Spark JI, Rowe S. Clinical governance: its effect on surgery and the surgeon. ANZ J Surg 2004;74 (3):167-70.
32. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151 (4):264-9.
33. Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Meth 2005;8 (3):257-71.
34. Albanese M, Norcini J. Systematic reviews: what are they and why should we care? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2002;7 (2):147-51.
35. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross-sectional study. BMJ 2005;330 (7499):1053.
36. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;19:CD000259.
37. Craig S. Direct observation of clinical practice in emergency medicine education. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18 (1):60-7.
38. Rout A, Roberts P. Peer review in nursing and midwifery: a literature review. J Clin Nurs 2008;17 (4):427-42.
39. Miller A, Archer J. Impact of workplace-based assessment on doctor's education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c5064.
40. Steinman MA, Ranji SR, Shojania KG, Gonzales R. Improving antibiotic selection: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of quality improvement strategies. Med Care 2006;44 (7):617-28.
41. Rowe AK, de Savigny D, Lanata CF, Victora CG. How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in low-resource settings? Lancet 2005;366 (9490):1026-35.
42. Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q 1989;67 (2):268-317.
43. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P. Can the feedback of patient assessments, brief training, or their combination, improve the interpersonal skills of primary care physicians? A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:179.
44. Huang C. Magnitude of task-sampling variability in performance assessment: a meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 2009;69 (6):887-912.
45. Fukkink NG, Trienekens N, Kramer LJC. Video feedback in education and training: putting learning in the picture. Educ Psychol Rev 2011;23 (1):45-63.
46. Murphy KR, Herr BM, Lockhart MC, Maguire E. Evaluating the performance of paper people. J Appl Psychol 1986;71 (4):654-61.
47. Li S. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Lang Learn 2010;60 (2):309-65.
48. Clariana RB, Koul R. Multiple-try feedback and higher-order learning outcomes. Int J Instr Media 2005;32 (3):239-45.
49. Pritchard RD, Harrell MM, DiazGranados D, Guzman MJ. The productivity measurement and enhancement system: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 2008;93 (3):540-67.
50. Conway JM, Huffcutt AI. Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: a meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Hum Perform 1997;10 (4):331-60.
51. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. J Appl Psychol 1996;81 (5):557-74.
52. Bangert DR, Kulik CLC, Kulik JA, Morgan M. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 1991;61 (2):213-38.
53. Kingston N, Nash B. Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educ Meas 2011;30 (4):28-37.
54. Claus L, Briscoe D. Employee performance management across borders: a review of relevant academic literature. Int J Manag Rev 2009;11 (2):175-96.
55. Kraiger K, Ford JK. The relation of job knowledge, job performance, and supervisory ratings as a function of ratee race. Hum Perform 1990;3 (4):269-79.
56. Ford JK, Kraiger K, Schechtman SL. Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: a meta-analysis of performance criteria. Psychol Bull 1986;99 (3):330-7.
57. Lyster R, Saito K. Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Stud Sec Lang Acquis 2010;32 (2):265-302.
58. Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI. Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. J Occup Organ Psychol 1994;67 (3):189-205.
59. Smith DE. Training programmes for performance appraisal: a review. Acad Manage Rev 1986;11 (1):22-40.
60. Wanguri DM. A review, an integration, and a critique of cross-disciplinary research on performance appraisals, evaluations, and feedback, 1980-1990. J Bus Commun 1995;32 (3):267-93.
61. Norton SM. Peer assessments of performance and ability: an exploratory meta-analysis of statistical artefacts and contextual moderators. J Bus Psychol 1992;6 (3):387-99.
62. Jawahar IM, Williams CR. Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Person Psychol 1997;50 (4):905-25.
63. Bommer WH, Johnson J, Rich GA, Podsakoff PM. On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: a meta-analysis. Person Psychol 1995;48 (3):587-605.
64. Heneman RL. The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: a meta-analysis. Person Psychol 1986;39 (4):811-26.
65. Harris MM, Schaubroeck J. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Person Psychol 1988;41 (1):43-62.
66. Jonsson A, Svingby G. The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev 2007;2 (2):130-44.
67. van Gennip NAE, Segers MSR, Tillema HH. Peer assessment for learning form a social perspective: the influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educ Res Rev 2009;4 (1):41-54.
68. Sasanguie D, Elen J, Clarebout G, van den Noortgate W, Vandenabeele J, De Fraine B. Disentangling instructional roles: the case of teaching and summative assessment. J High Educ 2011;36 (8):897-910.
69. Hepplestone S, Holden G, Irwin B, Parkin HJ, Thorpe L. Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review. Res Learn Tech 2011;19 (2):117-27.
70. Balzer WK, Doherty ME, O'Connor R. Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychol Bull 1989;106 (3):410-33.
71. Tang SH, Hall VC. The overjustification effect: a meta-analysis. Appl Cogn Psychol 1995;9 (5):365-404.
72. Jaehnig W, Miller ML. Feedback types in programmed instruction: a systematic review. Psychol Rec 2007;57 (2):219-32.
73. Karelaia N, Hogarth RM. Determinants of linear judgement: a meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychol Bull 2008;134 (3):404-26.
74. Travlos AK, Pratt J. Temporal locus of knowledge of results: a meta-analytic review. Percept Mot Skills 1995;80 (1):3-14.
75. Kulik JA, Kulik C. Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev Educ Res 1988;58 (1):79-97.
76. McAfee RB, Winn AR. The use of incentives/feedback to enhance work place safety: a critique of the literature. J Safety Res 1989;20 (1):7-19.
77. Azevedo R, Bernard RM. A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. J Educ Comput Res 1995;13 (2):111-27.
78. Herold DM, Fedor DB. Individual differences in feedback propensities and training performance. Hum Resour Manage R 2003;13 (4):675-89.
79. Waung M, Jones DR. The effect of feedback packaging on ratee reactions. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005;35 (8):1630-52.
80. Menarchy EP, Knight AM, Kolodner K, Wright SM. Physician characteristics associated with proficiency in feedback skills. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21 (5):440-6.
81. Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 1989;18 (2):119-44.
82. Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract 1998;5 (1):7-75.
83. Furnham A, Schofield S. Accepting personality test feedback: a review of the Barnum effect. Curr Psychol Res Rev 1987;6 (2):162-78.
84. Madzar S. Feedback-seeking behaviour: a review of the literature and implications for HRD practitioners. Hum Resource Dev Q 1995;6 (4):337-49.
85. Larson JR. The performance feedback process: a preliminary model. Organ Behav Hum Dec 1984;33 (1):42-76.
86. Delgado-Rodriguez M. Systematic reviews of meta-analyses: applications and limitations. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2006;60 (2):90-2.
87. Sharpe D. Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clin Psychol Rev 1997;17 (8):881-901.
88. Chambers EA. An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from the Journal of Educational Research (1992-2002). J Educ Res 2004;98 (1):35-44.
89. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013. http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/browse?type_0=englishdictionaries. [Accessed 31 May 2014.]