View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors.
Authors: Burford, Bryan (AUTHOR), Illing, Jan (AUTHOR), Kergon, Charlotte (AUTHOR), Morrow, Gill (AUTHOR), Livingston, Moira (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Education. Feb2010, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p165-176. 12p. 5 Charts.
Subjects: 360-degree feedback (Rating of employees), Employee reviews, Physicians, Medical education
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
Abstract: Medical Education 2010: 44 : 165–176 Context The effectiveness of multi-source feedback (MSF) tools, which are increasingly important in medical careers, will be influenced by their users’ attitudes. This study compared perceptions of two tools for giving MSF to UK junior doctors, of which one provides mainly textual feedback and one provides mainly numerical feedback. We then compared the perceptions of three groups, including: trainees; raters giving feedback, and supervisors delivering feedback. Methods Postal questionnaires about the usability, usefulness and validity of a feedback system were distributed to trainees, raters and supervisors across the north of England. Results Questionnaire responses were analysed to compare opinions of the two tools and among the different user groups. Overall there were few differences. Attitudes towards MSF in principle were positive and the tools were felt to be usable, but there was little agreement that they could effectively identify doctors in difficulty or provide developmental feedback. The text-oriented tool was rated as more useful for giving feedback on communication and attitude, and as more useful for identifying a doctor in difficulty. Raters were more positive than other users about the usefulness of numerical feedback, but, overall, text was felt to be more useful. Some trainees expressed concern that feedback was based on insufficient knowledge of their work. This was not supported by raters’ responses, although many did use indirect information. Trainees selected raters mainly for the perceived value of their feedback, but also based on personal relationships and the simple pragmatics of getting a tool completed. Discussion Despite positive attitudes to MSF, the perceived effectiveness of the tools was low. There are small but significant preferences for textual feedback, although raters may prefer numerical scales. Concerns about validity imply that greater awareness of contextual and psychological influences on feedback generation is necessary to allow the formative benefits of MSF to be optimised and to negate the risk of misuse in high-stakes contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 47540319
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burford%2C+Bryan%22">Burford, Bryan</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Illing%2C+Jan%22">Illing, Jan</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kergon%2C+Charlotte%22">Kergon, Charlotte</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morrow%2C+Gill%22">Morrow, Gill</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Livingston%2C+Moira%22">Livingston, Moira</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Feb2010, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p165-176. 12p. 5 Charts.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22360-degree+feedback+%28Rating+of+employees%29%22">360-degree feedback (Rating of employees)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employee+reviews%22">Employee reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physicians%22">Physicians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+education%22">Medical education</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Medical Education 2010: 44 : 165–176 Context The effectiveness of multi-source feedback (MSF) tools, which are increasingly important in medical careers, will be influenced by their users’ attitudes. This study compared perceptions of two tools for giving MSF to UK junior doctors, of which one provides mainly textual feedback and one provides mainly numerical feedback. We then compared the perceptions of three groups, including: trainees; raters giving feedback, and supervisors delivering feedback. Methods Postal questionnaires about the usability, usefulness and validity of a feedback system were distributed to trainees, raters and supervisors across the north of England. Results Questionnaire responses were analysed to compare opinions of the two tools and among the different user groups. Overall there were few differences. Attitudes towards MSF in principle were positive and the tools were felt to be usable, but there was little agreement that they could effectively identify doctors in difficulty or provide developmental feedback. The text-oriented tool was rated as more useful for giving feedback on communication and attitude, and as more useful for identifying a doctor in difficulty. Raters were more positive than other users about the usefulness of numerical feedback, but, overall, text was felt to be more useful. Some trainees expressed concern that feedback was based on insufficient knowledge of their work. This was not supported by raters’ responses, although many did use indirect information. Trainees selected raters mainly for the perceived value of their feedback, but also based on personal relationships and the simple pragmatics of getting a tool completed. Discussion Despite positive attitudes to MSF, the perceived effectiveness of the tools was low. There are small but significant preferences for textual feedback, although raters may prefer numerical scales. Concerns about validity imply that greater awareness of contextual and psychological influences on feedback generation is necessary to allow the formative benefits of MSF to be optimised and to negate the risk of misuse in high-stakes contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=47540319
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03565.x
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 165
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: 360-degree feedback (Rating of employees)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employee reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physicians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burford, Bryan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Illing, Jan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kergon, Charlotte
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morrow, Gill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Livingston, Moira
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Text: Feb2010
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03080110
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1