Skip to main content

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)