A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2024-10-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.20456.1
Akram Alsahafi, Micheál Newell, Thomas Kropmans
{"title":"A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.","authors":"Akram Alsahafi, Micheál Newell, Thomas Kropmans","doi":"10.12688/mep.20456.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Feedback is an essential component of medical education, enhancing the quality of students' knowledge and skills. However, providing effective feedback, particularly in clinical skills assessments like Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs], often poses challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the content of OSCE feedback given to undergraduate medical students over five years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 1034 anonymised medical students' OSCE performance was conducted, focusing on written feedback. The written feedback data were randomly selected from OSCE sessions, collected from university assessment records and anonymised for ethical considerations. R software was used to identify the most frequently repeated words in the examiners' feedback text, and word cloud charts were created to visualise the responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Word clouds generated from the top 200 most frequently used terms provided visual insights into common descriptive words in feedback comments. The most frequently repeated word over five years was \"good,\" indicative of potentially non-specific feedback.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The high frequency of non-specific terms like \"good\" suggests a need for more specific, constructive feedback. However, such generic terms can offer some positive reinforcement, more than they may be needed to foster significant improvement. As previously proposed in the literature, adopting structured feedback forms may facilitate the delivery of more specific, actionable feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study emphasises the importance of providing specific, actionable feedback in medical education to facilitate meaningful student development. As medical education continues to evolve, refining feedback processes is crucial for effectively guiding students' growth and skill enhancement. Using structured feedback forms can be a beneficial strategy for improving feedback quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"14 ","pages":"251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11615435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20456.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Feedback is an essential component of medical education, enhancing the quality of students' knowledge and skills. However, providing effective feedback, particularly in clinical skills assessments like Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs], often poses challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the content of OSCE feedback given to undergraduate medical students over five years.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1034 anonymised medical students' OSCE performance was conducted, focusing on written feedback. The written feedback data were randomly selected from OSCE sessions, collected from university assessment records and anonymised for ethical considerations. R software was used to identify the most frequently repeated words in the examiners' feedback text, and word cloud charts were created to visualise the responses.

Results: Word clouds generated from the top 200 most frequently used terms provided visual insights into common descriptive words in feedback comments. The most frequently repeated word over five years was "good," indicative of potentially non-specific feedback.

Discussion: The high frequency of non-specific terms like "good" suggests a need for more specific, constructive feedback. However, such generic terms can offer some positive reinforcement, more than they may be needed to foster significant improvement. As previously proposed in the literature, adopting structured feedback forms may facilitate the delivery of more specific, actionable feedback.

Conclusion: This study emphasises the importance of providing specific, actionable feedback in medical education to facilitate meaningful student development. As medical education continues to evolve, refining feedback processes is crucial for effectively guiding students' growth and skill enhancement. Using structured feedback forms can be a beneficial strategy for improving feedback quality.

医科本科生客观结构化临床考试成绩的回顾性反馈分析。
导读:反馈是医学教育的重要组成部分,可以提高学生的知识和技能质量。然而,提供有效的反馈,特别是在客观结构化临床检查(oses)等临床技能评估中,往往会带来挑战。本研究旨在评估欧安组织五年来给予本科医学生的反馈内容。方法:对1034名匿名医学生的OSCE成绩进行回顾性分析,以书面反馈为重点。书面反馈数据从欧安组织会议中随机选择,从大学评估记录中收集,并出于道德考虑匿名。使用R软件来识别考官反馈文本中重复频率最高的单词,并创建单词云图来可视化回答。结果:从最常用的前200个术语中生成的词云为反馈评论中常见的描述性词汇提供了直观的见解。在过去的五年里,最常被重复的词是“good”,这表明了潜在的非具体反馈。讨论:像“好”这样的非具体术语的高频率表明需要更具体、更有建设性的反馈。然而,这些通用术语可以提供一些积极的强化,而不是促进显著改进所需要的。正如先前在文献中提出的那样,采用结构化的反馈形式可能有助于提供更具体、可操作的反馈。结论:本研究强调了在医学教育中提供具体的、可操作的反馈以促进有意义的学生发展的重要性。随着医学教育的不断发展,完善反馈过程对于有效指导学生的成长和技能提高至关重要。使用结构化的反馈表格是提高反馈质量的有益策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信