| Title |
Feedback and the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30134.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric S Holmboe, Monica Yepes, Frederick Williams, Stephen J Huot |
| Abstract |
We studied the nature of feedback given after a miniCEX. We investigated whether the feedback was interactive; specifically, did the faculty allow the trainee to react to the feedback, enable self-assessment, and help trainees to develop an action plan for improvement. Finally, we investigated the number of types of recommendations given by faculty. One hundred and seven miniCEX feedback sessions were audiotaped. The faculty provided at least 1 recommendation for improvement in 80% of the feedback sessions. The majority of the sessions (61%) involved learner reaction, but in only 34% of the sessions did faculty ask for self-assessment from the intern and only 8% involved an action plan from the faculty member. Faculty are using the miniCEX to provide recommendations and often encourage learner reaction, but are underutilizing other interactive feedback methods of self-assessment and action plans. Programs should consider both specific training in feedback and changes to the miniCEX form to facilitate interactive feedback. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 199 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 12% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 22 | 11% |
| Professor | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 30% |
| Unknown | 39 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 117 | 57% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 44 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,556,126
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,588
of 8,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,738
of 62,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#25
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 62,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.