Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments

• Published in: Medical education 2008-01, Vol.42 (1), p.89-95
• Main Authors: Fernando, Nishan, Cleland, Jennifer, McKenzie, Hamish, Cassar, Kevin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Clinical Competence - standards; education; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods; Feedback; guidelines; Health participants; medical; Medical sciences; Miscellaneous; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Retrospective Studies; Scotland; Students, Medical; Teaching - methods; undergraduate/methods
• ISSN: 0308-0110; 1365-2923
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02939.x

Objective  We aimed to examine the factors that determine provision of feedback to students following mini‐clinical evaluation exercise (mini‐CEX) assessments. Methods  We carried out a pilot study of all final year medical students at the University of Aberdeen between November 2005 and June 2006. The study involved 396 mini‐CEX encounters (173 students and 105 assessors). We retrospectively analysed the components of feedback recorded on the marking sheets. Each component of feedback was coded as a binary response (feedback recorded or not). Logistic regression was used to determine the degree and significance of the factors that influenced feedback. Specialty block, range of marks, assessor group and assessor satisfaction were entered into the analysis using spss Version 14. Results  The provision of feedback by our assessors was poor. In 22.7% of cases, positive features were not identified; in 28.2% of cases, no suggestions for development were highlighted; in 49.7% of cases, no action plan was formulated. Assessors who gave a wider range of scores for the specific skill domains were more likely to record areas for development and action plans. Specialty block influenced feedback on areas for development. Suggesting an action plan was significantly associated with assessor group, and academic trainees were the most consistent providers of feedback. Assessor satisfaction was significantly associated with highlighting ‘anything especially good’. Conclusions  Numerous factors were associated with the provision of feedback in our cohort. Assessor training may address this variability. However, this would limit the diversity of assessors, which may be undesirable. More research is required on assessor training and recruitment.