Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture

Table 1 The percentages of individual and group feedback moments, provided by specialists or residents, that include the focus of feedback specified in the first column and/or that satisfy the specific characteristics of feedback, and differences between these percentages^a

Characteristic feedback	The percentage of reported feedback moments (Number of Students = 215)				Logistic regression
	Individual feedback		Group feedback		Logistic regression
	specialist (nfm = 515) (%)	resident (nfm = 1020) (%)	specialist (nfm = 1760) (%)	resident (nfm = 927) (%)	predictor^b	e^β (OR)	95% CI
	specialist (nfm = 515) (%)	resident (nfm = 1020) (%)	specialist (nfm = 1760) (%)	resident (nfm = 927) (%)	predictor^b	e^β (OR)	Lower	Upper
Focus feedback
History taking	40	39	46	44	ft	1.257*	1.100	1.438
Physical examination	61	61	56	57	ft	.836*	.731	.956
Clinical judgment	61	51	63	58	ft	1.232*	1.078	1.407
Clinical judgment					fp	.764**	.671	.869
Patient management	46	42	54	51	ft	1.435**	1.257	1.639
Patient counselling	14	14	22	14	ft	1.708**	1.303	2.238
					fp	.996	.736	1.347
					ft*fp	.587*	.405	.851
Professional behaviour	16	17	30	17	ft	2.152**	1.667	2.777
					fp	1.019	.765	1.357
					ft*fp	.470**	.331	.666
Compare students’ performance to the standard	30	33	52	42	ft	2.447**	1.984	3.017
					fp	1.125	.895	1.414
					ft*fp	.602**	.455	.795
Information on correct performance deficiency provided	72	70	55	57	ft	.523**	.456	.602
Plan to improve performance provided	17	16	28	24	ft	1.759**	1.489	2.078

*p < .01; **p < .001
^aOR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, ft. feedback type (0 = individual, 1 = group), fp feedback provider (0 = specialist, 1 = resident), ft.*fp interaction feedback type*feedback provider, nfm number of feedback moments
^bonly significant predictors were included in the table

ISSN: 1472-6920