| Title |
Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40037-017-0361-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chantal C. M. A. Duijn, Lisanne S. Welink, Mira Mandoki, Olle T. J. ten Cate, Wim D. J. Kremer, Harold G. J. Bok |
| Abstract |
Receiving feedback while in the clinical workplace is probably the most frequently voiced desire of students. In clinical learning environments, providing and seeking performance-relevant information is often difficult for both supervisors and students. The use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) can help to improve student assessment within competency-based education. This study aimed to illustrate what students' perceptions are of meaningful feedback viewed as conducive in preparing for performing EPA unsupervised. In a qualitative multicentre study we explored students' perceptions on meaningful feedback related to EPAs in the clinical workplace. Focus groups were conducted in three different healthcare institutes. Based on concepts from the literature, the transcripts were coded, iteratively reduced and displayed. Participants' preferences regarding meaningful feedback on EPAs were quite similar, irrespective of their institution or type of clerkship. Participants explicitly mentioned that feedback on EPAs could come from a variety of sources. Feedback must come from a credible, trustworthy supervisor who knows the student well, be delivered in a safe environment and stress both strengths and points for improvement. The feedback should be provided immediately after the observed activity and include instructions for follow-up. Students would appreciate feedback that refers to their ability to act unsupervised. There is abundant literature on how feedback should be provided, and what factors influence how feedback is sought by students. This study showed that students who are training to perform an EPA unsupervised have clear ideas about how, when and from whom feedback should be delivered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 149 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Professor | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 30% |
| Unknown | 43 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 44% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 51 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#373
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,894
of 331,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 331,648 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.