Cited by 158Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

“Directed” self-assessment: Practice and feedback within a social context

Sargeant, Joan, Mann, Karen, van der Vleuten, Cees, Metsemakers, Job·2008·Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Accurate self-assessment appears to be difficult and, some would propose, even impossible. Recent reviews suggest that peer assessment may be more accurate and that multisource feedback (MSF) may inform self-assessment. We had conducted a series of studies of family physicians in an MSF program including assessments from patients, medical colleagues, and coworkers and self-assessment. Using this body of research, this article explores self-assessment within the social context of multisource feedback and investigates the influence of feedback from peers and others upon self-assessment. METHODS: This is a review article in which we synthesized findings of the series of studies with respect to self-assessment, used conclusions to propose a model for self-assessment within a social context, and suggest practical and research implications. RESULTS: Physicians compared peers' and others' assessment feedback with global self-perceptions of performance. Negative feedback, especially from medical colleagues, that was inconsistent with self-perceptions was not readily reconciled with self-assessments. Multiple internal and environmental factors influenced reconciliation and assimilation of negative feedback. Reflection upon feedback and self-perceptions appeared to be instrumental to reconciliation, and reflection could be facilitated. DISCUSSION: We propose a model of "directed" self-assessment to facilitate the integration of external feedback, especially negative feedback, with self-perceptions and enable its use for practice improvement. Implications for education and research include increasing understanding of ways physicians assimilate external feedback and of the role of educators as facilitators of "directed" self-assessment and self-learning to assist physicians in integrating external feedback.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/chp.155

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J.
Affiliations
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Published
2008
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
47-54
ISSN
0894-1912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118524490
Cited by
158
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
self-assessment, multisource feedback, peer assessment, general practitioners, negative feedback, self-perception, reflection, feedback integration, practice improvement, physician training, self-learning
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Continuing, Humans, Learning, Self-Assessment, Self-Evaluation Programs, Models, Educational, Peer Review, Health Care, Feedback, Psychological

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