Van Hell Elisabeth A, Kuks Jan B M, Raat A N Janet, Van Lohuizen Mirjam T, Cohen-Schotanus Janke
Center for Research and Innovation in Medical Education, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Med Teach. 2009 Jan;31(1):45-50. doi: 10.1080/01421590802144294.
Several authors assume that the supervisor's role, observation of behaviour and students' active participation are important factors in the instructiveness of feedback.
This study aims to provide empirical evidence for these expectations.
For two weeks, 142 clerks from eight hospitals recorded for each individual feedback event: who provided the feedback, whether the feedback was based on observation of behaviour, who initiated the feedback moment and the perceived instructiveness of the feedback. Data were analysed with multilevel techniques.
The perceived instructiveness of feedback provided by specialists and residents did not differ significantly. However, both were perceived to be more instructive than feedback from nursing and paramedical staff (beta(specialists) = 0.862, p < 0.01; beta(residents) = 0.853, p < 0.01). Feedback on behaviour that had been directly observed was reported to be more instructive than feedback on behaviour that had not been observed (beta(observed) = 0.314, p < 0.001). Feedback which stemmed from student initiative or a joint initiative was experienced to be more instructive than feedback which ensued from the supervisor's initiative (beta(student) = 0.441, p < 0.01; beta(joint) = 0.392, p < 0.01).
The expectations concerning the influence of observation and student initiative on the instructiveness of feedback were confirmed in this empirical study. Expected differences in instructiveness between feedback from specialists and residents were not confirmed.
几位作者认为,上级的角色、行为观察以及学生的积极参与是反馈具有指导意义的重要因素。
本研究旨在为这些期望提供实证依据。
两周内,来自八家医院的142名实习医生记录了每一次个人反馈事件:谁提供了反馈、反馈是否基于行为观察、谁发起了反馈时刻以及反馈的感知指导意义。数据采用多层次技术进行分析。
专家和住院医生提供的反馈在感知指导意义上没有显著差异。然而,两者都被认为比护士和辅助医疗人员的反馈更具指导意义(β(专家)=0.862,p<0.01;β(住院医生)=0.853,p<0.01)。据报告,对直接观察到的行为的反馈比未观察到的行为的反馈更具指导意义(β(观察到的)=0.314,p<0.001)。由学生主动发起或共同发起的反馈比由上级发起的反馈更具指导意义(β(学生)=0.441,p<0.01;β(共同)=0.392,p<0.01)。
本实证研究证实了关于观察和学生主动性对反馈指导意义影响的期望。专家和住院医生反馈在指导意义上的预期差异未得到证实。