Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics

COMSEP Logo

Search This Site

COMSEP 2011 San Diego Meeting with AMSPDC

Poster Presentation:


THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT FEEDBACK TYPE ON STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT AFTER STANDARDIZED PATIENT ENCOUNTERS

Authors:
Amy E. Fleming, MD, Joseph Gigante, MD, Regina Russell, MA, MED, Emil Petrusa, PhD, John Shatzer, PhD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN

Background: Performance feedback is essential for learner education, but is often not given. While direct observation and immediate feedback is optimal it is often not possible due to time constraints. Additionally, learners need to develop the professional skill of assessing their own performance. The ability to self-assess can be enhanced by faculty feedback. This study examines whether there is a difference in learner self-assessment after faculty observation followed by individual feedback compared to watching a short video that provides generalized feedback.  Methods: This study received IRB exempt status. Data was gathered from the end-of-third-year standardized patient cases. For each case, students were randomly assigned one of two feedback types: 1) faculty observation with immediate feedback, 2) faculty video covering expected performance and common errors. After feedback, students were asked to evaluate their own performance on 7 dimensions (professionalism, communication, H&P, organization, clinical reasoning, management, and overall performance) using a 9 point Likert scale. Students evaluated the feedback type on a 5 point Likert scale. Paired data from 66 students who received both feedback types were identified. Student self-assessment on each performance dimension and ratings of usefulness were compared using paired samples t-tests. Results: There were significant differences on two performance dimensions when comparing the two feedback types. Students rated themselves higher on communication/interpersonal skills (6.41 faculty, 5.86 video; t=2.54) and higher on Organization of Data Collection (6.11 faculty, 5.54 video; t=2.72) after receiving faculty feedback. Student self-assessment on the other five dimensions revealed no differences based on feedback type. Students rated the usefulness of faculty feedback significantly higher than the video feedback (4.42 faculty, 3.94 video; t=3.338). Conclusions: Results suggest that video feedback can provide similar feedback to faculty feedback. Faculty feedback gives students a “boost” in their self-assessment in two performance areas compared to watching a general video. Further research may improve understanding of the relationship between feedback and self-assessment and identify areas where generalized feedback is sufficient and areas where faculty feedback may be necessary.