...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
【24h】

Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback

机译:欧安组织后反馈:面对面与增强的书面反馈相比

获取原文
           

摘要

The Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) is a useful means of generating meaningful feedback. OSCE feedback may be in various forms (written, face to face and audio or video recordings). Studies on OSCE feedback are uncommon, especially involving Asian medical students. We compared two methods of OSCE feedback delivered to fourth year medical students in Malaysia: (i) Face to face (FTF) immediate feedback (semester one) (ii) Individualised enhanced written (EW) feedback containing detailed scores in each domain, examiners’ free text comments and the marking rubric (semester two). Both methods were evaluated by students and staff examiners, and students’ responses were compared against their OSCE performance. Of the 116 students who sat for both formative OSCEs, 82.8% (n=96) and 86.2% (n=100) responded to the first and second survey respectively. Most students were comfortable to receive feedback (91.3% in FTF, 96% in EW) with EW feedback associated with higher comfort levels (p=0.022). Distress affected a small number with no differences between either method (13.5% in FTF, 10% in EW, p=0.316). Most students perceived both types of feedback improved their performance (89.6% in FTF, 95% in EW); this perception was significantly stronger for EW feedback (p=0.008). Students who preferred EW feedback had lower OSCE scores compared to those preferring FTF feedback (mean scores ± SD: 43.8 ± 5.3 in EW, 47.2 ± 6.5 in FTF, p=0.049). Students ranked the “marking rubric” to be the most valuable aspect of the EW feedback. Tutors felt both methods of feedback were equally beneficial. Few examiners felt they needed training (21.4% in FTF, 15% in EW) but students perceived this need for tutors’ training differently (53.1% in FTF, 46% in EW) Whilst both methods of OSCE feedback were highly valued, students preferred to receive EW feedback and felt it was more beneficial. Learning cultures of Malaysian students may have influenced this view. Information provided in EW feedback should be tailored accordingly to provide meaningful feedback in OSCE exams.
机译:目标结构化临床检查(欧安组织)是一种产生有意义反馈的有用手段。欧索塞反馈可以是各种形式(书面,面对面和音频或录像)。欧安组织反馈的研究罕见,特别是涉及亚洲医学生。我们将两种方法与马来西亚的第四年医学生送到第四年:(i)面对面(FTF)即时反馈(学期)(II)个性化增强书面(EW)反馈,其中包括每个领域的详细分数,审查员自由文本评论和标记标记(学期二)。两种方法都是通过学生和工作人员审查员评估的,并将学生的反应与他们的欧安组织表现进行比较。在坐在欧洲化学欧洲武器的116名学生中,82.8%(n = 96)和86.2%(n = 100)分别响应了第一和第二调查。大多数学生都很乐意接收反馈(在FTF中91.3%,EW 96%),EW反馈与较高的舒适度相关联(P = 0.022)。遇险影响了一个少数,无论任何一种方法之间没有差异(FTF在13.5%,EW中的10%,P = 0.316)。大多数学生认为这两种类型的反馈都改善了它们的性能(FTF的89.6%,EW中的95%);这种感知对于EW反馈显着强烈(P = 0.008)。优先考虑反馈的学生与优先的FTF反馈相比具有较低的欧安组织评分(平均分数±SD:43.8±5.3在EW中,FTF 47.2±6.5,P = 0.049)。学生将“标记标题”排名为EW反馈的最有价值方面。辅导员感受到两种反馈方法同样有益。很少有审查员觉得他们需要培训(FTF的21.4%,在EW中为15%),但学生认为这一需求的培训不同(FTF的53.1%,EW 46%),而欧安组织反馈的两种方法都有高度重视,学生们接收EW反馈并觉得它更有益。马来西亚学习文化可能影响了这一观点。 EW反馈中提供的信息应根据欧安组织考试提供有意义的反馈。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号