电子作品集中反馈意见的定性文本分析：质量和与 CanMEDS 角色的一致性

IF 4.8 2区医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.5334/pme.1050

Sofie Van Ostaeyen, M. Embo, Tijs Rotsaert, Orphée De Clercq, T. Schellens, Martin Valcke

{"title":"电子作品集中反馈意见的定性文本分析：质量和与 CanMEDS 角色的一致性","authors":"Sofie Van Ostaeyen, M. Embo, Tijs Rotsaert, Orphée De Clercq, T. Schellens, Martin Valcke","doi":"10.5334/pme.1050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Competency-based education requires high-quality feedback to guide students’ acquisition of competencies. Sound assessment and feedback systems, such as ePortfolios, are needed to facilitate seeking and giving feedback during clinical placements. However, it is unclear whether the written feedback comments in ePortfolios are of high quality and aligned with the current competency focus. Therefore, this study investigates the quality of written feedback comments in ePortfolios of healthcare students, as well as how these feedback comments align with the CanMEDS roles. Methods: A qualitative textual analysis was conducted. 2,349 written feedback comments retrieved from the ePortfolios of 149 healthcare students (specialist medicine, general practice, occupational therapy, speech therapy and midwifery) were analysed retrospectively using deductive content analysis. Two structured categorisation matrices, one based on four literature-derived feedback quality criteria (performance, judgment, elaboration and improvement) and another one on the seven CanMEDS roles (Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional), guided the analysis. Results: The minority of the feedback comments (n = 352; 14.9%) could be considered of high quality because they met all four quality criteria. Most feedback comments were of moderate quality and met only two to three quality criteria. Regarding the CanMEDS roles, the Medical Expert role was most frequently represented in the feedback comments, as opposed to the roles Leader and Health Advocate. Discussion: The results highlighted that providing high-quality feedback is challenging. To respond to these challenges, it is recommended to set up individual and continuous feedback training.","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"4 3","pages":"584 - 593"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Textual Analysis of Feedback Comments in ePortfolios: Quality and Alignment with the CanMEDS Roles\",\"authors\":\"Sofie Van Ostaeyen, M. Embo, Tijs Rotsaert, Orphée De Clercq, T. Schellens, Martin Valcke\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.1050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Competency-based education requires high-quality feedback to guide students’ acquisition of competencies. Sound assessment and feedback systems, such as ePortfolios, are needed to facilitate seeking and giving feedback during clinical placements. However, it is unclear whether the written feedback comments in ePortfolios are of high quality and aligned with the current competency focus. Therefore, this study investigates the quality of written feedback comments in ePortfolios of healthcare students, as well as how these feedback comments align with the CanMEDS roles. Methods: A qualitative textual analysis was conducted. 2,349 written feedback comments retrieved from the ePortfolios of 149 healthcare students (specialist medicine, general practice, occupational therapy, speech therapy and midwifery) were analysed retrospectively using deductive content analysis. Two structured categorisation matrices, one based on four literature-derived feedback quality criteria (performance, judgment, elaboration and improvement) and another one on the seven CanMEDS roles (Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional), guided the analysis. Results: The minority of the feedback comments (n = 352; 14.9%) could be considered of high quality because they met all four quality criteria. Most feedback comments were of moderate quality and met only two to three quality criteria. Regarding the CanMEDS roles, the Medical Expert role was most frequently represented in the feedback comments, as opposed to the roles Leader and Health Advocate. Discussion: The results highlighted that providing high-quality feedback is challenging. To respond to these challenges, it is recommended to set up individual and continuous feedback training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"584 - 593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1050\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1050","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

简介能力本位教育需要高质量的反馈来指导学生掌握能力。需要电子档案袋等完善的评估和反馈系统来促进学生在临床实习期间寻求和提供反馈。然而，目前还不清楚电子档案袋中的书面反馈意见是否高质量，是否与当前的能力重点相一致。因此，本研究调查了医护学生电子档案袋中书面反馈意见的质量，以及这些反馈意见与 CanMEDS 角色的一致性。研究方法进行定性文本分析。使用演绎式内容分析法对从 149 名医疗保健专业学生（专科医学、全科医学、职业治疗、言语治疗和助产）的电子档案袋中检索到的 2349 条书面反馈意见进行了回顾性分析。分析中使用了两个结构化分类矩阵，一个是基于四个文献衍生的反馈质量标准（表现、判断、阐述和改进），另一个是基于七个 CanMEDS 角色（医学专家、沟通者、合作者、领导者、健康倡导者、学者和专业人士）。分析结果：少数反馈意见（n = 352；14.9%）可被视为高质量，因为它们符合所有四项质量标准。大多数反馈意见属于中等质量，只符合两到三项质量标准。关于 CanMEDS 角色，反馈意见中最常见的是医学专家角色，而不是领导者和健康倡导者角色。讨论：结果表明，提供高质量的反馈意见具有挑战性。为应对这些挑战，建议开展个人和持续的反馈培训。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A Qualitative Textual Analysis of Feedback Comments in ePortfolios: Quality and Alignment with the CanMEDS Roles

Introduction: Competency-based education requires high-quality feedback to guide students’ acquisition of competencies. Sound assessment and feedback systems, such as ePortfolios, are needed to facilitate seeking and giving feedback during clinical placements. However, it is unclear whether the written feedback comments in ePortfolios are of high quality and aligned with the current competency focus. Therefore, this study investigates the quality of written feedback comments in ePortfolios of healthcare students, as well as how these feedback comments align with the CanMEDS roles. Methods: A qualitative textual analysis was conducted. 2,349 written feedback comments retrieved from the ePortfolios of 149 healthcare students (specialist medicine, general practice, occupational therapy, speech therapy and midwifery) were analysed retrospectively using deductive content analysis. Two structured categorisation matrices, one based on four literature-derived feedback quality criteria (performance, judgment, elaboration and improvement) and another one on the seven CanMEDS roles (Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional), guided the analysis. Results: The minority of the feedback comments (n = 352; 14.9%) could be considered of high quality because they met all four quality criteria. Most feedback comments were of moderate quality and met only two to three quality criteria. Regarding the CanMEDS roles, the Medical Expert role was most frequently represented in the feedback comments, as opposed to the roles Leader and Health Advocate. Discussion: The results highlighted that providing high-quality feedback is challenging. To respond to these challenges, it is recommended to set up individual and continuous feedback training.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Perspectives on Medical Education Multiple-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

28 weeks

期刊介绍： Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.