首页> 外文OA文献 >Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
【2h】

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

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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) Conclusion 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:摘要背景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)。关于欧安组织反馈的研究罕见,特别是涉及亚洲医学生。方法对马来西亚第四年医学生的欧安组织反馈方法比较了两种方法:(i)面对面(FTF)即时反馈(学期)(学期)(II)个性化增强书面(EW)反馈,其中包含每个域名的详细分数,审查员'免费文本评论和标记标题(学期两节)。两种方法都是通过学生和工作人员审查员评估,学生的反应与欧安组织的表现进行了比较。 116名坐在型号欧洲化学欧洲武器的学生,82.8%(n = 96)和86.2%(n = 100)分别响应了第一和第二次调查。大多数学生都很乐意接收反馈(FTF,96%,96%,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少数,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中的89.6%,EW 95%);这种感知对于EW反馈明显越强(P = 0.008)。优先ew反馈的学生与更愿意的FTF反馈(平均分数±SD:43.8±5.3在EW中,47.2±6.5在FTF中的23.8±6.5,P = 0.049)相比,他们的学生进行了较低的欧安组织评分。学生将“标记标题”排名为EW反馈最有价值的方面。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%,ew 15%),但学生认为这一需求不同的不同(FTF的53.1%,EW中的53.1%)结论,欧索斯反馈的两种方法都有高度重视,学生首选接受EW反馈并觉得它更有益。马来西亚学生的学习文化可能会影响这个观点。 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
代理获取

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