Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Comparing the quality of feedback

From: Implementing and evaluating an e-portfolio for postgraduate family medicine training in the Western Cape, South Africa

Feedback assessment 2015 paper
Median (IQR)
2016 electronic
Median (IQR)
p-value
1. Feedback in general (non-specific) 14 (14.0–14.0) 14 (14.0–14.0) 0.344
2. Feedback on registrar’s behaviour
 2.1 General behaviour 11 (8.0–12.0) 13 (12.0–13.0) 0.040*
 2.2 Specific behaviour 6 (3.0–8.0) 8 (6.0–11.0) 0.079
3. Type of feedback
 3.1 Highlights competency 12 (8.0–13.0) 12 (10.75–13.0) 0.721
 3.2 Highlights deficiencies 1 (0.0–2.0) 4.5 (2.0–6.0) 0.070
4. Feedback on how to improve
 4.1 General suggestions 3 (1.0–5.0) 4.5 (3.75–8.0) 0.481
 4.2 Specific suggestions 3 (2.0–5.0) 5 (3.0–7.0) 0.906
 4.3 Aligned to learning outcomes 0 (0) 2 (1.0–2.0) 0.001*
5. How was feedback assessed?
 5.1 Based on direct observation 14 (13.0–14.0) 14 (11.0–14.0) 0.137
 5.2 Based on hearsay from others 5(3.0–5.0) 2 (1.0–3.0) 0.028*
6. Total number of words 350 (223–599) 583 (462–1042) 0.345
7. Feedback acknowledged 6 (4.0–8.0) 14 (11.0–14.0) 0.009*
  1. *Statistically significant at p < 0.05