"But Why?": Explanatory Feedback Is a Reliable Marker of High-Quality Narrative Assessment of Surgical Performance.

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005985
Rachel Stork Poeppelman, Junsang Cho, Kristine Nachbor, Tejas C Sekhar, Jack Pruett, Adam Baim, Sasha Strul, Alex Barsam, Benjamin Langworthy, Evan L Waxman, Susan M Culican
{"title":"\"But Why?\": Explanatory Feedback Is a Reliable Marker of High-Quality Narrative Assessment of Surgical Performance.","authors":"Rachel Stork Poeppelman, Junsang Cho, Kristine Nachbor, Tejas C Sekhar, Jack Pruett, Adam Baim, Sasha Strul, Alex Barsam, Benjamin Langworthy, Evan L Waxman, Susan M Culican","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study examines the quality of short narrative comments collected using an online workplace-based assessment (WBA) tool.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The quality of comments collected by a WBA tool at the UPMC Ophthalmology Residency Training Program was evaluated between July 2017-June 2020. A randomized rating exercise involving 10 meta-raters from 6 institutions was performed to evaluate the value of narratives from deidentified WBAs. The tool captured a single-item entrustment competency question with brief comments. Comments were evaluated using a Quality of Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score (range, 0-5; ≥3 considered high quality) and on whether the assessor provided a feedback rationale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 838 unique WBAs were collected from 15 attending evaluators. Comments were brief (median [interquartile range] length, 11 [7-17] words), yet 514 (61.3%) were rated as high quality (QuAL score ≥3). Of all 838 comments, 98 (11.7%) included a specific reason the evidence or suggestion was provided to the learner. Of these 98 comments, 94 (95.9%) met the high-quality feedback threshold. A higher QuAL score was associated with a higher postgraduate year (PGY) level (estimate [SE], 1.603 [0.428], P < .001 for PGY2 [reference]; 1.003 [0.389], P = .01 for PGY3; 1.079 [0.360], P = .003 for PGY4), suggesting more advanced learners receive higher-quality narrative comments. A correlation was found between a higher entrustment rating and a lower QuAL score (estimate [SE], -0.199 [0.053], P < .001). When the PGY level was controlled for, this association got stronger (estimate [SE], -0.310 [0.057], P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of WBA comments from attending physicians evaluated using the QuAL score demonstrated that most comments were high quality despite their brevity. Residents in later training years and with lower entrustment ratings received higher-quality comments. High-quality narrative assessments were longer and addressed rationale as part of the comment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"614-620"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12173205/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005985","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the quality of short narrative comments collected using an online workplace-based assessment (WBA) tool.

Method: The quality of comments collected by a WBA tool at the UPMC Ophthalmology Residency Training Program was evaluated between July 2017-June 2020. A randomized rating exercise involving 10 meta-raters from 6 institutions was performed to evaluate the value of narratives from deidentified WBAs. The tool captured a single-item entrustment competency question with brief comments. Comments were evaluated using a Quality of Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score (range, 0-5; ≥3 considered high quality) and on whether the assessor provided a feedback rationale.

Results: A total of 838 unique WBAs were collected from 15 attending evaluators. Comments were brief (median [interquartile range] length, 11 [7-17] words), yet 514 (61.3%) were rated as high quality (QuAL score ≥3). Of all 838 comments, 98 (11.7%) included a specific reason the evidence or suggestion was provided to the learner. Of these 98 comments, 94 (95.9%) met the high-quality feedback threshold. A higher QuAL score was associated with a higher postgraduate year (PGY) level (estimate [SE], 1.603 [0.428], P < .001 for PGY2 [reference]; 1.003 [0.389], P = .01 for PGY3; 1.079 [0.360], P = .003 for PGY4), suggesting more advanced learners receive higher-quality narrative comments. A correlation was found between a higher entrustment rating and a lower QuAL score (estimate [SE], -0.199 [0.053], P < .001). When the PGY level was controlled for, this association got stronger (estimate [SE], -0.310 [0.057], P < .001).

Conclusions: Analysis of WBA comments from attending physicians evaluated using the QuAL score demonstrated that most comments were high quality despite their brevity. Residents in later training years and with lower entrustment ratings received higher-quality comments. High-quality narrative assessments were longer and addressed rationale as part of the comment.

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
“但为什么?”解释性反馈是高质量手术疗效叙述性评估的可靠标志。
目的:本研究考察了使用基于工作场所的在线评估(WBA)工具收集的简短叙述评论的质量。方法:在2017年7月至2020年6月期间,对UPMC眼科住院医师培训项目中使用WBA工具收集的意见的质量进行评估。我们对来自6个机构的10位元评分者进行了随机评分,以评估来自已确定的wba的叙述的价值。该工具捕获了一个带有简短评论的单项委托能力问题。使用学习质量评估(QuAL)分数(范围,0-5;≥3被认为是高质量)以及评估者是否提供了反馈理由。结果:从15位与会评估者中共收集到838份独特的wba。评论很简短(中位数[四分位数范围]长度为11[7-17]字),但514条(61.3%)被评为高质量(QuAL评分≥3)。在所有838条评论中,98条(11.7%)包含向学习者提供证据或建议的具体原因。在这98条评论中,94条(95.9%)达到了高质量的反馈阈值。高质量分数与高研究生学年(PGY)水平相关(估计[SE], 1.603 [0.428], PGY2[参考]P < 0.001;PGY3为1.003 [0.389],P = 0.01;1.079 [0.360], PGY4的P = 0.003),说明越高级的学习者获得的叙事评论质量越高。较高的委托评级与较低的QuAL评分之间存在相关性(估计[SE], -0.199 [0.053], P < .001)。当控制PGY水平时,这种关联变得更强(估计[SE], -0.310 [0.057], P < .001)。结论:对使用QuAL评分评估的主治医生的WBA评论进行分析表明,大多数评论尽管简短,但质量高。在较晚的培训年份和较低的委托评级的住院医生获得了更高质量的评论。高质量的叙述性评估较长,并将基本原理作为评论的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
Faculty Affairs as a Lever for Faculty Well-Being. A Framework for Inclusion: Fostering Representation in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Beyond Through Dedicated Mentorships and Workshops. It is the Unknown That Matters: Program Directors' Perspectives on Information Gaps in Learner Educational Handovers. Paging the Algorithm: Applying the Best Available Human Principle to Graduate Medical Education. Searching for Reliability: Looking Beyond Student Satisfaction Surveys.
×
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:604180095
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