A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2024-10-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.20456.1
Akram Alsahafi, Micheál Newell, Thomas Kropmans
{"title":"A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.","authors":"Akram Alsahafi, Micheál Newell, Thomas Kropmans","doi":"10.12688/mep.20456.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Feedback is an essential component of medical education, enhancing the quality of students' knowledge and skills. However, providing effective feedback, particularly in clinical skills assessments like Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs], often poses challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the content of OSCE feedback given to undergraduate medical students over five years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 1034 anonymised medical students' OSCE performance was conducted, focusing on written feedback. The written feedback data were randomly selected from OSCE sessions, collected from university assessment records and anonymised for ethical considerations. R software was used to identify the most frequently repeated words in the examiners' feedback text, and word cloud charts were created to visualise the responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Word clouds generated from the top 200 most frequently used terms provided visual insights into common descriptive words in feedback comments. The most frequently repeated word over five years was \"good,\" indicative of potentially non-specific feedback.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The high frequency of non-specific terms like \"good\" suggests a need for more specific, constructive feedback. However, such generic terms can offer some positive reinforcement, more than they may be needed to foster significant improvement. As previously proposed in the literature, adopting structured feedback forms may facilitate the delivery of more specific, actionable feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study emphasises the importance of providing specific, actionable feedback in medical education to facilitate meaningful student development. As medical education continues to evolve, refining feedback processes is crucial for effectively guiding students' growth and skill enhancement. Using structured feedback forms can be a beneficial strategy for improving feedback quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"14 ","pages":"251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11615435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20456.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Feedback is an essential component of medical education, enhancing the quality of students' knowledge and skills. However, providing effective feedback, particularly in clinical skills assessments like Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs], often poses challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the content of OSCE feedback given to undergraduate medical students over five years.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1034 anonymised medical students' OSCE performance was conducted, focusing on written feedback. The written feedback data were randomly selected from OSCE sessions, collected from university assessment records and anonymised for ethical considerations. R software was used to identify the most frequently repeated words in the examiners' feedback text, and word cloud charts were created to visualise the responses.

Results: Word clouds generated from the top 200 most frequently used terms provided visual insights into common descriptive words in feedback comments. The most frequently repeated word over five years was "good," indicative of potentially non-specific feedback.

Discussion: The high frequency of non-specific terms like "good" suggests a need for more specific, constructive feedback. However, such generic terms can offer some positive reinforcement, more than they may be needed to foster significant improvement. As previously proposed in the literature, adopting structured feedback forms may facilitate the delivery of more specific, actionable feedback.

Conclusion: This study emphasises the importance of providing specific, actionable feedback in medical education to facilitate meaningful student development. As medical education continues to evolve, refining feedback processes is crucial for effectively guiding students' growth and skill enhancement. Using structured feedback forms can be a beneficial strategy for improving feedback quality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊最新文献
Medical students' knowledge on palliative care - a survey of teaching in Finland. Developing a clinician-friendly rubric for assessing history-taking skills in medical undergraduates speaking English as a foreign language. A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students. Guidelines for Integrating actionable A-SMART Learning Outcomes into the Backward Design Process. Practical tips for teaching medicine in the metaverse.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1