Feedback providers' credibility impacts students' satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance

Medical Teacher

Volumn 37, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 767-774

  Van De Ridder, J M Monica ^a   Berk, Francisca C J ^b   Stokking, Karel M ^c   Ten Cate, Olle Th J ^d  

^a ALBERT SCHWEITZER HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b Bespeak   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940745933     PISSN: 0142159X     EISSN: 1466187X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970617     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Albright MD, Levy PE. 1995. The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:577-600.
2. Alder GS, Ambrose ML. 2005. An examination of the effect of computerized performance, monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance and satisfaction. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 97:161-177.
3. Aronson E, Turner JA, Carlsmith JM. 1963. Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:31-36.
4. Bagai A, Thavendiranathan P, Detsky AS. 2006. Does this patient have hearing impairment? JAMA 295(4):416-428.
5. Bannister BD. 1986. Performance outcome feedback and attributional feedback: Interactive effects on recipient responses. J Appl Psych 71:203-210.
6. Bing-You RG, Paterson J, Levine MA. 1997. Feedback falling on deaf ears: Resident's receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Med Teach 19:40-44.
7. Bloom AJ, Hautaluoma JE. 1987. Effects of message valence communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. J Soc Psychol 127:329-338.
8. Boatman DF, Miglioretti DL, Eberwein C, Alidoost M, Reich SG. 2007. How accurate are bedside hearing tests? Neurology 68:1311-1314.
9. Bochner S, Insko CA. 1966. Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 4:614-621.
10. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
11. Downing SM. 2004. Reliability: On the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 38:1006-1012.
12. Ear, Nose & Throat Examination - Medi-Vision Films 12. 2010. [Accessed 5 January 2013] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsS7d6-k1F8.
13. Fedor DB, Eder RW, Buckley RM. 1989. The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 44:369-414.
14. Finn AN, Paul Schrodt P, Witt PL, Elledge N, Jernberg KA, Larson LM. 2009. A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Commun Educ 60(1):75-94.
15. Giffin K. 1967. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychol Bull 68:104-120.
16. Halperin K, Snyder CR, Shenkel RJ, Houston BK. 1976. Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback. J Appl Psych 61:85-88.
17. Hurley AE. 1997. The effects of self-esteem and source credibility on self-denying prophecies. J Psychol 131:581-594.
18. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor SM. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psych 64:349-371.
19. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. 2006. The four levels: An overview. In: Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD, editors. Evaluating training programs. The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler Publishers. pp 21-65.
20. LaPlante D, Ambady N. 2002. Saying it like it isn't: Mixed messages from men and women in the workplace. J Appl Psychol 32:2435-2457.
21. Lee HE, Park HS, Lee TS, Lee DW. 2007. Relationship between LMX and subordinates' feedback-seeking behaviors. Soc Behav Pers 35:659-674.
22. Leung K, Su S, Morris MW. 2001. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Hum Relat 54:1155-1187.
23. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. 2001. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. JAMA 285:1987-1991.
24. Murdoch-Eaton D, Sargeant S. 2012. Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students' perceptions about feedback. Med Educ 46:711-721.
25. Orpen C, King G. 1989. Effects of superiors' feedback, credibility, and expertise on subordinates' reactions: An experimental study. Psychol Rep 64:645-646.
26. Podsakoff PM, Farh JL. 1989. Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 44:45-67.
27. Pornpitakpan C. 2004. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. J Appl Psychol 34:243-281.
28. Roberson QM, Stewart MM. 2006. Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes. Br J Psychol 97:281-298.
29. Sargeant J, MacLeod T, Sinclair D, Power M. 2011. How do physicians assess their family physician colleagues' performance? Creating a rubric to inform assessment and feedback. J Contin Educ Health 31(2):87-94.
30. Sargeant J, Mann K, Ferrier S. 2005. Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: Perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 39:497-504.
31. Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. 2007. Challenges in multisource feedback: Intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ 41:583-591.
32. Solomon GB, DiMarco AM, Ohlson CJ, Reece SD. 1998. Expectation and coaching experience: Is more better? J Sport Behav 21:444-456.
33. Steelman LA, Rutkowsky KA. 2004. Moderators of employee reaction to negative feedback. J Manage Psychol 19:6-18.
34. Stevens J. 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
35. Turner NB, van de Leemput AJ, Draaisma JMT, Oosterveld P, ten Cate TJ. 2008. Validity of the visual analogue scale as an instrument to assess self-efficacy in resuscitation skills. Med Educ 42:503-511.
36. van de Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate ThJ. 2008. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ 42:189-197.
37. Vancouver JB, Morrison EW. 1995. Feedback inquiry: The effect of source attributes and individual differences. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62:276-285.
38. Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. 2006. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 28:117-128.
39. Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CPM, Lingard L. 2012a. Learning from clinical work: The roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Med Educ 46:192-200.
40. Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CPM, Vanstone M, Lingard L. 2012b. Understanding responses to feedback: The potential and limitations of regulatory focus theory. Med Educ 46:593-603.