CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEmergency Medicine Education and Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences in faculty feedback for high, expected, and below-expected clinically performing emergency medicine residents

Open access
Coughlin, Ryan F., Tsyrulnik, Alina, Gottlieb, Michael, Bod, Jessica, Barnicle, Ryan, Dziura, James, Della‐Giustina, David, Goldflam, Katja·2022·AEM Education and Training
DOI 10.1002/aet2.10788PMC PMC9482001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: A lifelong pursuit such as medicine is frequently paired with a framework of "deliberate practice" for improvement. It is unclear whether the quality of feedback varies across different learner levels. Our study aims to assess whether a difference exists in the quality of feedback delivered to high-, expected-, and below-expected performer emergency medicine (EM) residents based on their attending-identified performance level. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of written EM resident feedback collected between November 2018 and March 2021. Clinical performance level was subjectively determined by attending faculty in their feedback. Feedback was coded on a scale from 0-5 based on the presence (1) or absence (0) of the items modified from the Ende's SMART criteria: Specific (S), Measurable (M), Achievable (A), Relevant (R), and Time-bound (T). The primary outcome was any total modified SMART criteria score difference concerning performance level using logistic regression with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE). Secondary outcomes were differences for individual criteria. Results: We analyzed 1284 evaluations (311 high performers, 930 expected performers, and 43 below-expected performers) of 94 unique residents from 66 different evaluators. Mean total modified SMART scores were significantly higher in high and below-expected performers than those designated as expected performers by faculty evaluators. Achievable and Relevant written feedback was provided to high performers in a significantly larger proportion than expected and below-expected performers. Only 278 out of 1284 evaluations met criteria for Specific. Conclusions: Mean total modified SMART feedback scores were significantly greater in high performers and below-expected performers when compared to expected performers. Achievable and Relevant feedback was provided in greater proportions to high performer residents compared to expected and below-expected performers. These findings are a challenge to academic faculty to engage in quality feedback delivery for residents at all performance levels.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aet2.10788

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many studies report that the quality of human feedback varies widely depending on the provider and the situation.

    “many studies report that the quality of human feedback varies widely depending on the provider and the situation [29-31]”

    From AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students’ Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results (page unavailable) show that written feedback scores differed by residents’ performance level, and the Methods (page unavailable) say scores from the same evaluator tended to be more alike than scores from different evaluators. This supports variation by recipient and provider, but the paper studies one emergency-medicine residency program; it does not establish that human feedback quality varies widely across situations in general. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ericsson KA, 2017, Peak: how all of us can achieve extraordinary things
  2. Washington ZRL, 2019, Women of color get less support at work. Here's how managers can change that, Harvard Business Review, 4, 2019
  3. Correll SSC, 2016, Research: vague feedback is holding women Back, Harv Bus Rev, 29, 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Coughlin, R. F., Tsyrulnik, A., Gottlieb, M., Bod, J., Barnicle, R., Dziura, J., Della‐Giustina, D., & Goldflam, K.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Coughlin, Ryan F.
ORCID
Venue
AEM Education and Training
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-09-17
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e10788-e10788
ISSN
2472-5390 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/aet2.10788
PMC
PMC9482001
OpenAlex
W4296102037
Cited by
7
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • AEM Education and Training (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency Medicine Education and Research
Keywords
instructor feedback, emergency medicine residents, deliberate practice, resident evaluation, feedback quality, medical education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review