Skip to main content

Table 3 Pattern matrix and communalities (h2) for practitioner inventory

From: The use of factor analysis and abductive inference to explore students’ and practitioners’ perspectives of feedback: divergent or congruent understanding?

Items

Pattern Matrix

h2

F1

F2

F3

F4

11.9

Feedback encouraged the student to think about what motivates them to learn

0.731

0.061

0.113

− 0.104

.591

2.1

The learning goals were agreed in advance with the student

0.699

− 0.095

− 0.053

− 0.024

.501

7.4

Feedback was expected

0.686

0.073

− 0.081

0.195

.444

11.7

Feedback encouraged the student to share their feelings about different experiences

0.680

0.140

0.051

−0.065

.573

5.4

Feedback occurred at an agreed timea

0.667

−0.100

− 0.034

− 0.068

.514

3.2

Feedback was informed by multiple sources

0.488

−0.027

−0.129

− 0.058

.388

8.2

Learning goals were modified based on feedback

0.484

−0.069

−0.012

− 0.246

.395

9.1

I felt the student was comfortable sharing their viewpointsa

0.449

0.034

−0.277

 

.400

10.4

The feedback I shared was non-threatening

−0.031

0.768

0.054

0.044

.531

10.3

The feedback I shared was non-judgementala

 

0.743

−0.158

0.019

.632

10.1

The feedback I shared was respectfula

0.030

0.715

−0.050

−0.110

.635

5.3

Feedback was timely

0.158

0.054

−0.606

0.020

.492

7.1

The amount of feedback was manageable

0.022

0.112

−0.591

− 0.045

.445

5.1

There was enough time for feedbacka

0.157

0.096

−0.505

−0.088

.465

7.2

Feedback was regular

0.207

−0.050

−0.443

− 0.288

.540

10.2

The feedback I shared was cleara

0.028

0.205

−0.384

(−0.324)

520

1.1

I encouraged the student to evaluate their practice

0.224

−0.016

0.030

−0.612

.539

8.4

Feedback helped the student to know how to improve their practice

−0.087

−0.015

− 0.296

−0.581

.488

6.6

I encouraged the student to ask questions to help them understand the feedback

0.154

0.247

0.218

−0.568

.522

6.2

Feedback relevant to the student’s situationa

 

0.181

−0.227

− 0.561

.609

2.2

Feedback was related to on workplace or university standards

0.025

0.021

−0.265

−0.556

.534

6.3

I encouraged the student to be involved in feedback conversationsa

0.287

0.110

−0.046

−0.457

.537

10.6

I considered the emotional needs of the studenta

0.261

0.154

0.013

−0.341

.365

Eigenvalues

8.94

1.85

1.45

1.29

 

% variance explained

38.87%

8.04%

6.33%

5.59%

 

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

.902

Bartlett’s test of sphericity

p < .001

Cronbach’s alpha

.854

.798

.800

.855

 

F1 – Collaborative preparation for feedback (M = 3.73, SD = 0.60)

F2 – Imparting feedback (M = 4.65, SD = 0.47)

F3 – Environmental context for feedback (M = 3.86, SD = 0.57)

F4 – Learner-focused feedback (M = 4.29, SD = 0.57)

  1. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotationLoadings ≥ .01 presented in pattern matrix
  2. a Items occurring in both student and practitioner inventory
  3. Lower cross-loading items indicated in parentheses