A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Background: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid tool to assess the clinical skills of medical students. Feedback after OSCE is essential for student improvement and safe clinical practice. Many examiners do not provide helpful or insightful feedback in the text space provided...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | MedEdPublish |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://mededpublish.org/articles/12-11/v2 |
| _version_ | 1797792142762967040 |
|---|---|
| author | Micheál Newell Davina Li Xin Ling Thomas Kropmans Akram Alsahafi |
| author_facet | Micheál Newell Davina Li Xin Ling Thomas Kropmans Akram Alsahafi |
| author_sort | Micheál Newell |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid tool to assess the clinical skills of medical students. Feedback after OSCE is essential for student improvement and safe clinical practice. Many examiners do not provide helpful or insightful feedback in the text space provided after OSCE stations, which may adversely affect learning outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best determinants for quality written feedback in the field of medicine. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINHAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature up to February 2021. We included studies that described the quality of good/effective feedback in clinical skills assessment in the field of medicine. Four independent reviewers extracted determinants used to assess the quality of written feedback. The percentage agreement and kappa coefficients were calculated for each determinant. The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: 14 studies were included in this systematic review. 10 determinants were identified for assessing feedback. The determinants with the highest agreement among reviewers were specific, described gap, balanced, constructive and behavioural; with kappa values of 0.79, 0.45, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.26 respectively. All other determinants had low agreement (kappa values below 0.22) indicating that even though they have been used in the literature, they might not be applicable for good quality feedback. The risk of bias was low or moderate overall. Conclusions: This work suggests that good quality written feedback should be specific, balanced, and constructive in nature, and should describe the gap in student learning as well as observed behavioural actions in the exams. Integrating these determinants in OSCE assessment will help guide and support educators for providing effective feedback for the learner. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T02:28:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2edfb63c59074d9d8bef72a50b635412 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2312-7996 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T02:28:56Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | MedEdPublish |
| spelling | doaj.art-2edfb63c59074d9d8bef72a50b6354122023-06-30T00:00:00ZengF1000 Research LtdMedEdPublish2312-79962023-06-011221103A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]Micheál Newell0Davina Li Xin Ling1Thomas Kropmans2Akram Alsahafi3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0965-5834College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences – School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Galway. Co, H91 V4AY, IrelandCollege of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences – School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Galway. Co, H91 V4AY, IrelandCollege of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences – School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Galway. Co, H91 V4AY, IrelandCollege of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences – School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Galway. Co, H91 V4AY, IrelandBackground: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid tool to assess the clinical skills of medical students. Feedback after OSCE is essential for student improvement and safe clinical practice. Many examiners do not provide helpful or insightful feedback in the text space provided after OSCE stations, which may adversely affect learning outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best determinants for quality written feedback in the field of medicine. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINHAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature up to February 2021. We included studies that described the quality of good/effective feedback in clinical skills assessment in the field of medicine. Four independent reviewers extracted determinants used to assess the quality of written feedback. The percentage agreement and kappa coefficients were calculated for each determinant. The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: 14 studies were included in this systematic review. 10 determinants were identified for assessing feedback. The determinants with the highest agreement among reviewers were specific, described gap, balanced, constructive and behavioural; with kappa values of 0.79, 0.45, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.26 respectively. All other determinants had low agreement (kappa values below 0.22) indicating that even though they have been used in the literature, they might not be applicable for good quality feedback. The risk of bias was low or moderate overall. Conclusions: This work suggests that good quality written feedback should be specific, balanced, and constructive in nature, and should describe the gap in student learning as well as observed behavioural actions in the exams. Integrating these determinants in OSCE assessment will help guide and support educators for providing effective feedback for the learner.https://mededpublish.org/articles/12-11/v2Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) effective feedback measurement quality determinant Kappa.eng |
| spellingShingle | Micheál Newell Davina Li Xin Ling Thomas Kropmans Akram Alsahafi A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] MedEdPublish Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) effective feedback measurement quality determinant Kappa. eng |
| title | A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_full | A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_fullStr | A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_short | A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_sort | systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment version 2 peer review 2 approved |
| topic | Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) effective feedback measurement quality determinant Kappa. eng |
| url | https://mededpublish.org/articles/12-11/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT michealnewell asystematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT davinalixinling asystematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT thomaskropmans asystematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT akramalsahafi asystematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT michealnewell systematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT davinalixinling systematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT thomaskropmans systematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved AT akramalsahafi systematicreviewofeffectivequalityfeedbackmeasurementtoolsusedinclinicalskillsassessmentversion2peerreview2approved |