Factors influencing trainers’ feedback-giving behavior: a cross-sectional survey

BMC Medical Education

Cees PM van der Vleuten²  Henk GA Mokkink¹  Anneke WM Kramer¹  Elisabeth AM Pelgrim¹ 

[1] Department of Primary Care and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, Huispostnummer 117, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands

关键词: Big five;    Task perception;    Neuroticism;    Feedback-giving;   

Others  :  1118107
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-65

 received in 2013-11-09, accepted in 2014-03-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The literature provides some insight into the role of feedback givers, but little information about within-trainer factors influencing ‘feedback-giving behaviours’. We looked for relationships between characteristics of feedback givers (self-efficacy, task perception, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and elements of observation and feedback (frequency, quality of content and consequential impact).

Methods

We developed and tested several hypotheses regarding the characteristics and elements in a cross-sectional digital survey among GP trainers and their trainees in 2011 and 2012. We conducted bivariate analysis using Pearson correlations and performed multiple regression analysis.

Results

Sixty-two trainer-trainee couples from three Dutch institutions for postgraduate GP training participated in the study. Trainer scores on ‘task perception’ and on a scale of the trait ‘neuroticism’ correlated positively with frequency of feedback and quality of feedback content. Multiple regression analysis supported positive correlations between task perception and frequency of feedback and between neuroticism and quality of feedback content. No other correlations were found.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the literature on feedback giving by revealing factors that influence feedback-giving behaviour, namely neuroticism and task perception. Trainers whose task perception included facilitation of observation and feedback (task perception) and trainers who were concerned about the safety of their patients during consultations with trainees (neuroticism) engaged more frequently in observation and feedback and gave feedback of higher quality.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Pelgrim et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Watling C, Driessen E, Van der Vleuten CPM, Vanstone M, Lingard L: Beyond individualism: professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ 2013, 47:585-594.
• [2]Shute VJ: Focus on formative feedback. Rev of Educ Res 2008, 78:153-189.
• [3]Hattie J, Timperley H: The power of feedback. Rev of Educ Res 2007, 77:81-112.
• [4]Vancouver JB, Morrison EW: Feedback inquiry – the effect of source attributes and individual differences. Organ Behav Hum Dec 1995, 62:276-285.
• [5]VandeWalle D, Goutam CN, Shankar G, Brown SP: An integrated model of feedback-seeking behaviour: disposition, context, and cognition. J Appl Psycol 2000, 85:996-1003.
• [6]Madzar S: Feedback seeking behaviour: a review of the literature and implications for HRD practitioners. Hum Resource Develop Quart 1995, 6:337-349.
• [7]Krasman J: The feedback-seeking personality: big five and feedback-seeking behaviour. J Leadership Org Stud 2010, 17:18-32.
• [8]Ashford SJ, Cummings LL: Feedback as an individual resource – personality strategies of creating information. Organ Behav Hum Dec 1983, 32:370-398.
• [9]Teunissen PW, Stapel DA, Van der Vleuten C, Scherpbier A, Boor K, Scheele F: Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents’ feedback-seeking behaviour in relation to night shifts. Acad Med 2009, 84:910-917.
• [10]Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, Van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J: Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ 2007, 41:583-591.
• [11]Bok GJ, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JPI, Van Beukelen P, Jaarsma ADC, Van der Vleuten CPM: Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ 2013, 47:282-291.
• [12]Crommelinck M, Anseel F: Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking behaviour: a literature review. Med Educ 2013, 47:232-241.
• [13]Pelgrim EAM, Kramer AWM, Mokkink HGA, Van der Vleuten CPM: Reflection as a component of formative assessment appears to be instrumental in promoting the use of feedback; an observational study. Med Teacher 2013, 35:772-778.
• [14]Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Van der Vleuten CP, Metsemakers JF: Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ 2009, 14:399-410.
• [15]Adams SM: Positive affect and feedback-giving behaviour. J Manage Psychol 2005, 20:24-42.
• [16]Pelgrim EAM, Kramer AWM, Mokkink HGA, Van der Vleuten CPM: The process of feedback in workplace-based assessment: organization, delivery, continuity. Med Educ 2012, 46:604-612.
• [17]Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernagbeo EC, Durning SJ, Hauer KE, Holmboe ES: Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Med Educ 2012, 46:201-215.
• [18]Pelgrim EAM, Kramer AWM, Mokkink HGA, Van der Vleuten CPM: Quality of written narrative feedback and reflection in a modified mini-clinical evaluation exercise: an observational study. BMC Med Educ 2012, 12:97. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Bandura A: Social learning theory. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall; 1977.
• [20]Boendemaker PMC, Schuling MH, Meyboom - de Jong B, Zierstra RP, Metz JCM: Core characteristics of the competent general practice trainer, a Delphi Study. Adv Health Sci Educ 2003, 8:111-116.
• [21]Fluit CRMG, Bolhuis S, Grol R, Laan R, Wensing M: Assessing the quality of clinical teachers: a systematic review of content and quality of questionnaires for assessing clinical teachers. J Gen Intern Med 2010, 25:1337-1345.
• [22]Costa PM, McCrae RR: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.
• [23]Mattheyws G, Deary IJ: Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
• [24]Archer JC: State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ 2010, 44:101-108.
• [25]Gregory JB, Levy PE: Employee feedback orientation: Implications for effective coaching relationships. Coaching: An Int J Theory Res Pract 2012, 5:86-99.
• [26]Pelgrim EAM, Kramer AWM: How can medical education benefit from the evidence on learners seeking and using feedback? Med Educ 2013, 47:225-227.