| Title |
Giving Feedback in Medical Education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00027.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana G. Hewson, Margaret L. Little |
| Abstract |
We investigated naturally occurring feedback incidents to substantiate literature-based recommended techniques for giving feedback effectively. A faculty development course for improving the teaching of the medical interview, with opportunities for participants to receive feedback. Seventy-four course participants (clinician-educators from a wide range of medical disciplines, and several behavioral scientists). We used qualitative and quantitative approaches. Participants provided narratives of helpful and unhelpful incidents experienced during the course and then rated their own narratives using a semantic-differential survey. We found strong agreement between the two approaches, and congruence between our data and the recommended literature. Giving feedback effectively includes: establishing an appropriate interpersonal climate; using an appropriate location; establishing mutually agreed upon goals; eliciting the learner's thoughts and feelings; reflecting on observed behaviors; being nonjudgmental; relating feedback to specific behaviors; offering the right amount of feedback; and offering suggestions for improvement. Feedback techniques experienced by respondents substantiate the literature-based recommendations, and corrective feedback is regarded as helpful when delivered appropriately. A model for providing feedback is offered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 389 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 48 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 11% |
| Other | 39 | 10% |
| Researcher | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 104 | 26% |
| Unknown | 72 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 223 | 56% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Unknown | 86 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2019.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,327
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,130
of 131,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#195
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.