Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Objective analysis of the quality of the feedback (n = 140 videotaped “direct observation” feedback sessions)

From: The quality of feedback during formative OSCEs depends on the tutors’ profile

Objective analysis All Tutors Generalists Specialists   
  n = 35 n = 21 n = 14   
  Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Adjusted p*
Content (number of comments per feedback on...)
 Global performance 0.64 (0.66) 0.54 (0.60) 0.77 (0.72) 0.039 0.264
 History taking 4.76 (3.51) 5.73 (3.75) 3.54 (2.77) <0.001 0.160
 Physical examination 5.17 (3.05) 5.73 (3.17) 4.47 (2.76) 0.014 0.372
 Explanation-end 1.01 (1.03) 0.92 (1.10) 1.13 (0.93) 0.242 0.169
 Communication 2.30 (1.70) 2.61 (1.89) 1.92 (1.32) 0.015 0.230
 Elaboration- clinical reasoning 1.56 (1.53) 1.76 (1.57) 1.32 (1.45) 0.09 0.768
 Elaboration- communication/professionalism 1.46 (1.39) 1.96 (1.41) 0.82 (1.06) <0.001 <0.001
Process (Likert 0: completely disagree - 5: completely agree)
 The tutor explored students’ learning needs 2.67 (1.53) 3.49 (0.90) 1.67 (1.54) <0.001 <0.001
 The tutor stimulated students’ self-assessment 2.30 (1.53) 3.07 (1.11) 1.37 (1.45) <0.001 <0.001
 The feedback was descriptive 3.63 (1.22) 4.12 (0.92) 3.00 (1.27) <0.001 0.001
 The feedback was subjective (using “I”) 3.16 (1.85) 3.99 (1.52) 2.11 (1.70) <0.001 <0.001
 The feedback was balanced 3.78 (1.27) 4.23 (0.90) 3.21 (1.44) <0.001 <0.001
 The supervisor took into account the student’s self-assessment 2.30 (1.65) 3.19 (1.27) 1.23 (1.42) <0.001 <0.001
 The tutor stimulated students to participate to the problem solving process 2.96 (1.13) 3.55 (0.86) 2.21 (0.98) <0.001 <0.001
 The tutor used role-playing or hands on to give students the opportunity to practice parts of the consultation 1.18 (1.30) 1.49 (1.38) 0.78 (1.08) 0.001 0.036
 The tutor checked students’ understanding at the end of the idem 2.70 (1.60) 3.67 (1.14) 1.47 (1.20) <0.001 <0.001
Transversal dimensions
 Empathy 3.92 (1.02) 4.46 (0.62) 3.24 (1.02) <0.001 <0.001
 Pedagogical effectiveness 3.14 (1.23) 3.86 (0.86) 2.23 (1.00) <0.001 <0.001
 Structure of the feed-back 3.11 (1.25) 3.95 (0.79) 2.05 (0.86) <0.001 <0.001
 Verbal interaction 3.33 (1.05) 3.74 (0.99) 2.81 (0.88) <0.001 0.002
Global evaluation 3.30 (1.07) 4.01 (0.61) 2.40 (0.82) <0.001 <0.001
  1. *using a model taking into account the type of OSCE (fixed effect), and the supervisor (random effect)