Cited by 402Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes.

Open access
Eva, Kevin W., Armson, Heather, Holmboe, Eric, Lockyer, Jocelyn, Loney, Elaine, Mann, Karen, Sargeant, Joan·2012·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Self-appraisal has repeatedly been shown to be inadequate as a mechanism for performance improvement. This has placed greater emphasis on understanding the processes through which self-perception and external feedback interact to influence professional development. As feedback is inevitably interpreted through the lens of one's self-perceptions it is important to understand how learners interpret, accept, and use feedback (or not) and the factors that influence those interpretations. 134 participants from 8 health professional training/continuing competence programs were recruited to participate in focus groups. Analyses were designed to (a) elicit understandings of the processes used by learners and physicians to interpret, accept and use (or not) data to inform their perceptions of their clinical performance, and (b) further understand the factors (internal and external) believed to influence interpretation of feedback. Multiple influences appear to impact upon the interpretation and uptake of feedback. These include confidence, experience, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable. Importantly, however, each could have a paradoxical effect of both increasing and decreasing receptivity. Less prevalent but nonetheless important themes suggested mechanisms through which cognitive reasoning processes might impede growth from formative feedback. Many studies have examined the effectiveness of feedback through variable interventions focused on feedback delivery. This study suggests that it is equally important to consider feedback from the perspective of how it is received. The interplay observed between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes reinforces the notion that there is no simple recipe for the delivery of effective feedback. These factors should be taken into account when trying to understand (a) why self-appraisal can be flawed, (b) why appropriate external feedback is vital (yet can be ineffective), and (c) why we may need to disentangle the goals of performance improvement from the goals of improving self-assessment.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This qualitative focus-group study explores how learners and physicians interpret, accept, and use external feedback, emphasizing that confidence, experience, fear of appearing unknowledgeable, and cognitive reasoning processes interact to shape receptivity. It concludes there is no simple recipe for effective feedback delivery because feedback is always filtered through the recipient’s self-perceptions.

Key findings

  • Across 134 participants in 17 focus groups—53 undergraduate learners, 32 postgraduate learners, and 49 physicians—multiple influences affected feedback interpretation and uptake, including confidence, experience, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable; each could paradoxically both increase and decrease receptivity.
  • Experience, especially the number of cases seen, was directly linked to confidence, but confidence was fragile and could enable learners to seek/accept corrective feedback while also guarding them against critical feedback; fear of “looking stupid” was described as motivational.
  • Uptake depended on perceived credibility of the feedback source, including whether the source had observed performance, understood the recipient’s role, and acted from beneficence/non-maleficence; solo practice was noted as limiting access to collegial feedback.
  • Participants’ comments suggested hot cognition (emotion, self-serving bias) and cold cognition (confirmation bias, memory/attention limits) can bias interpretation; they tended to infer ability from how often they had experienced a case/task, with little mention of the quality of those experiences, and some trusted positive outcomes while discounting negative ones.

Methods

  • Qualitative focus-group study nested in a larger 5-country study; purposive sampling recruited learners and physicians from 8 health professional training/continuing competence programs: 3 undergraduate (midwifery and MD), 2 postgraduate medical residency, and 3 practicing physician (family physicians and internists) programs.
  • Conducted 2 focus groups for 7 programs and 3 for the 8th; groups were about 1.5 h, recorded and transcribed, semi-structured, with open-ended questions on self-assessment and formal reflective activities.
  • Analysis was iterative and team-based: initial coding structure, independent open coding, comparison through teleconference/email, at least five team members analyzing each transcript, constant comparison, face-to-face and two-day meetings, and construction of a preliminary conceptual diagram; this paper reports a more detailed analysis of data on use/non-use of external feedback.

Limitations

  • The paper states that studying self-judgment by asking participants to discuss their knowledge/performance is counter-intuitive, but argues the results reinforce the need to study these issues this way.
  • The paper states that researchers themselves are prone to interpretation biases, especially confirmation bias, and aimed to minimize this by having multiple team members independently generate themes; it also draws confidence from unanticipated themes and alignment with independent social psychology literature.
  • The text makes evident, and the paper acknowledges, that the methodology does not allow assessment of the accuracy of participants’ interpretations or the prevalence of actual bias; the research design did not allow assessment of the accuracy of participants’ statements.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-011-9290-7

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 13 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Less prevalent but nonetheless important themes suggested mechanisms through which cognitive reasoning processes might impede growth from formative feedback.

    “Less prevalent but nonetheless important themes suggested mechanisms through which cognitive reasoning processes might impede growth from formative feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Learners described trying to assess their competence in challenging situations in relation to the risk to the patient and the ramifications of appearing incompetent to others if they called for help.

    “They described trying to assess their competence in these challenging situations vis-a-vis the risk to the patient and the ramifications of appearing incompetent to others if they called for help.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Multiple influences appear to impact upon the interpretation and uptake of feedback.

    “Multiple influences appear to impact upon the interpretation and uptake of feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Experience was treated as a fundamental determinant of whether or not one is able to perform certain tasks.

    “Experience was treated as a fundamental determinant of whether or not one is able to perform certain tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Confidence gets in the way because people think they have to project it.

    “The dominant influence appeared to be confidence, which allows one to hear potentially threatening appraisals but also gets in the way because people think they have to project it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Each of confidence, experience, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable could have a paradoxical effect of both increasing and decreasing receptivity to feedback.

    “Importantly, however, each could have a paradoxical effect of both increasing and decreasing receptivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants' interpretations of external feedback, both formal and informal, fell into several categories: (1) the interplay between experience, confidence, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable; (2) influences upon accessing, interpreting and using feedback; and (3) mechanisms guiding (and potentially biasing) interpretation of external feedback.

    “The ways in which participants interpreted external feedback, both formal and informal, fell into several categories. We discuss these as (1) the interplay between experience, confidence, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable; (2) influences upon accessing, interpreting and using feedback; and (3) mechanisms guiding (and potentially biasing) interpretation of external feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Some participants argued that lack of humility (the willingness to disclose one's limitations) is a fundamental problem with some individuals' practice.

    “Some argued that lack of humility (i.e., the willingness to disclose one’s limitations) is a fundamental problem with some individuals’ practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Experience alone seemed to contribute to confidence and a sense of comfort.

    “That is, experience alone seemed to contribute to confidence and a sense of comfort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Confidence, experience, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable are influences on the interpretation and uptake of feedback.

    “These include confidence, experience, and fear of not appearing knowledgeable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    There remain fundamental differences of opinion across all groups with respect to how much learners and physicians should disclose to their patients, their colleagues, or themselves about their limitations.

    “there remain fundamental differences of opinion across all groups with respect to how much learners and physicians should disclose to their patients, their colleagues, or themselves about their limitations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both the absolute number of cases one has seen and the occurrence of specific experiences were thought to play a guiding role.

    “Both the absolute number of cases one has seen and the occurrence of specific experiences were thought to play a guiding role.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Little was mentioned in terms of the quality of either the experience or of the information gained from these experiences.

    “However, little was mentioned in terms of the quality of either the experience or of the information gained from these experiences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For learners, experience was generally viewed positively, was desired, and generally led to increased confidence.

    “For learners, experience was generally viewed positively, was desired, and generally led to increased confidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Findingown data

    Other participants argued that one should not disclose lack of knowledge to patients because desirable features of practice include independence and the projection of confidence.

    “Others argued that one should not disclose this lack of knowledge to patients as desirable features of practice to be strived for include independence and the projection of confidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Physicians were susceptible to fear of not appearing knowledgeable and suggested that the fear of appearing not to know is a motivational factor.

    “physicians too were susceptible to fear of not appearing knowledgeable and suggested that the fear of appearing not to know is a motivational factor”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants did not value confidence at all costs; many spoke of the risk of becoming over-confident and described how one's confidence needs to be informed by honest and humble self-appraisals.

    “That is not to say that participants valued confidence at all costs as many did speak of the risk of becoming over-confident and described how one’s confidence needs to be informed by honest and humble self-appraisals of how they are doing”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some noted that the lack of opportunity to readily engage in collegial interactions creates difficulty in solo practice and limits access to external feedback.

    “Some noted that the lack of opportunity to readily engage in collegial interactions creates difficulty “when you are in … solo practice” [Physician K7] and limits access to external feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A number of physicians spoke of the need to be shaken out of a prior belief and used emotionally-tied words like "shock" to express the feeling that first arises when discovering that there was a weakness in their performance.

    “A number of physicians spoke of the need to be shaken out of a prior belief and used emotionally-tied words like “shock” to express the feeling that first arises when discovering that there was a weakness in their performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Confidence and experience appeared to work in two ways: by enabling participants to ask for and accept feedback and, for some, guarding them against feedback that might be critical in nature.

    “That is, confidence and experience appeared to work in two ways: By enabling participants to ask for and accept feedback and, for some, guarding them against feedback that might be critical in nature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Some participants expressed views suggesting a tendency to trust positive outcomes/feedback while discounting negative ones.

    “some expressed views that suggested a tendency to trust positive outcomes/feedback while discounting negative ones”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Confidence appeared tenuous, and loss of confidence in response to particular events is something that needs to be overcome.

    “Yet, confidence appeared tenuous and participants’ comments also made it clear that loss of confidence in response to particular events is something that needs to be overcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    'Shock' is a common initial response to feedback that one must try deliberately to overcome to avoid shrinking away from tasks or situations in which performance was sub-optimal.

    “(3) the “shock” described as a common initial response that one must try deliberately to overcome to avoid shrinking away from tasks or situations in which performance was sub-optimal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Family physicians commented on critical consultants who did not understand the family physician's role and patients who lacked the medical knowledge or insight required to objectively judge care.

    “Family physicians likewise commented on critical consultants who did not understand the family physician’s role and patients who lacked the medical knowledge or insight required to objectively judge care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The need to believe that feedback was delivered from a position of beneficence and non-maleficence was equally important, and that belief often developed as a result of strong relationships between the feedback deliverer and recipient.

    “Equally important was the need to believe that the feedback was delivered from a position of beneficence and non-maleficence, that belief often developing as a result of strong relationships being established between the feedback deliverer and recipient.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Noticeable by its absence was indication of the quality of those experiences in terms of what information was provided or what was actually learned.

    “That would seem appropriate, but noticeable by its absence was indication of the quality of those experiences in terms of what information was provided or what was actually learned.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The problem is often that feedback is simply unavailable or truly of insufficient quality.

    “and that the problem is often that feedback is simply unavailable or truly of insufficient quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    At least five team members analyzed each transcript and participated in continually informing the coding structure and its revision.

    “At least five team members analyzed each transcript and participated in this process, continually informing the coding structure and its revision.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Accurate external feedback is crucial if one hopes to facilitate improvement.

    “The general conclusion from all of this effort is that accurate external feedback is crucial if one hopes to facilitate improvement (Sargeant et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sargeant et al. 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    High levels of team member engagement and interaction through all stages of analysis enhanced the rigour of the analysis.

    “High levels of team member engagement and interaction through all stages of analysis enhanced its rigour (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005) as did the collaboration of team members from a variety of backgrounds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Themes were initially determined independently by open-coding transcripts and then comparing interpretations through group discussions.

    “We determined themes initially independently by open-coding transcripts and then comparing interpretations through group discussions conducted by teleconference and email.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Performance gains often occur without altering individuals' self-perceptions; the two become aligned because performance increases to meet perceptions.

    “performance gains often occur without altering individuals’ self-perceptions, the two becoming aligned because performance increases to meet perceptions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kruger and Dunning’s (1999) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Differences in interpretation were resolved through discussion and re-examining transcripts and coded data.

    “We resolved differences in interpretation through discussion and re-examining transcripts and coded data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis was conducted iteratively as a team.

    “We conducted the analysis iteratively as a team.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The methodology used in this study does not allow a statement to be made regarding the accuracy of the participants' interpretations or the prevalence of actual 'bias.'

    “The methodology used in this study does not allow a statement to be made regarding the accuracy of the participants’ interpretations or the prevalence of actual “bias.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is equally if not more important to consider how feedback is received and data are interpreted.

    “it is equally if not more important to consider how feedback is received and data are interpreted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Trusting positive feedback while discounting negative feedback can potentially increase confidence by not accounting for the fact that positive outcomes can arise by chance just as readily as negative outcomes.

    “thereby potentially increasing confidence by not accounting for the fact that positive outcomes can arise by chance just as readily as can negative outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Positive outcomes can arise by chance just as readily as negative outcomes.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Researchers in social psychology have identified two broad classes of influences sometimes described as 'hot cognition' and 'cold cognition.'

    “Growing out of the classic work of Tversky and Kahneman (1974), researchers in this field have identified two broad classes of influences sometimes described as “hot cognition” and “cold cognition” (Gilovich 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Tversky and Kahneman (1974) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gilovich 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Educators may be best served by separating the goal of performance improvement from the goal of accurate self-assessment.

    “This further suggests that we, as educators, may be best served by separating the goal of performance improvement from the goal of accurate self-assessment”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Any effort to improve performance and overcome reliance on often flawed personal judgments must be considered in the context of what receivers believe provides important guidance regarding the credibility of that feedback.

    “As such, any effort to improve performance and overcome reliance on often flawed personal judgments must be considered in the context of what receivers believe provides important guidance regarding the credibility of that feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Feedback is never provided in a vacuum.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If one hopes to convey feedback that is perceived as credible, an effort must be made to tailor feedback in a manner that will be interpretable and palatable through the lens of the recipient's perceptions.

    “If one hopes to convey feedback that is perceived as credible an effort must be made to tailor feedback in a manner that will be interpretable and palatable through the lens of the recipient’s perceptions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    The adaptive nature of positive self-efficacy makes it such that in many circumstances we are better off maintaining a positive outlook regarding our own abilities.

    “The argument laid out above, however, is meant to highlight that the adaptive nature of positive self-efficacy (Dweck 1999) makes it such that in many circumstances we are better off maintaining a positive outlook regarding our own abilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dweck 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Experience determines confidence, which becomes a double-edged sword.

    “That experience determines confidence, therefore, becomes a double-edged sword.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Feedback providers must learn to take into account the self-perceptions of the individual being assessed.

    “While most teaching around feedback focuses on delivery, feedback providers must learn to take into account the self-perceptions of the individual being assessed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The results of this study reinforce the need to study these issues in this way.

    “The results of this study, however, reinforce the need to study these issues in this way.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A variety of methodologies have yielded similar conclusions across disparate domains, providing evidence of triangulation.

    “That a variety of methodologies have yielded similar conclusions across disparate domains can be seen as providing evidence of triangulation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The triangulation strengthens claims that the results are meaningful and add to our understanding of how some basic psychological issues may impact upon professional self-regulation.

    “thus strengthening claims that the results are meaningful and add to our understanding of how some basic psychological issues may impact upon professional self-regulation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The researchers themselves are prone to biases in their interpretation of participant responses, with the tendency to confirm one's preconceptions being an obvious concern.

    “A greater limitation of the research reported here is that the researchers themselves are prone to biases in their interpretation of participant responses, the tendency to confirm one’s preconceptions providing one obvious concern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    As experience accumulates, one gains both confidence and a greater capacity to discount corrective feedback as a result of having a greater personal database of cases on which to draw as 'evidence' that the skill has been achieved and that the source of the feedback must be biased or misinformed.

    “As experience accumulates, however, one gains both confidence and a greater capacity to discount corrective feedback as a result of having a greater personal database of cases on which to draw as “evidence” that the skill has been achieved and that the source of the feedback (be it a person or a test or some other dataset) must be biased in some way or misinformed about the receiver’s abilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The researchers aimed to minimize this problem by having multiple team members read the transcripts and independently generate themes/ideas rather than relying on the perceptions of one individual.

    “We aimed to minimize this problem by having multiple team members read the transcripts and independently generate themes/ideas rather than relying on the perceptions of one individual.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The interviews and theoretical perspective help us understand the complex variety of ways in which feedback, when received, can be interpreted in ways that can lead to it falling on deaf ears despite the best intentions of all involved.

    “Rather, the interviews and this theoretical perspective merely help us to understand the complex variety of ways in which feedback, when received, can be interpreted in ways that can lead to it falling on deaf ears despite the best intentions of all involved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous work in both clinical and lay domains has suggested that, when left to our own devices, we judge ourselves to have achieved proficiency when the rate at which we are learning from additional experiences declines rather than judging proficiency based on the actual level of performance achieved.

    “Previous work in both clinical and lay domains has suggested that, when left to our own devices, we judge ourselves to have achieved proficiency when the rate at which we are learning from additional experiences declines (i.e., rather than judging proficiency based on the actual level of performance achieved; Eva 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eva 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Many of the themes identified were not anticipated to present themselves in this dataset.

    “At the same time, we draw confidence from the fact that many of the themes identified were not anticipated to present themselves in this dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
48 of 48
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Focus group participants’ retrospective reports accurately reflect the processes they use to interpret, accept, and use external feedback.

    “The data analyzed to address these issues were collected as part of a larger qualitative study that took place across 5 countries using focus groups aimed at determining participants’ perceptions of a variety of formal reflective activities (Sargeant et al. 2010).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The factors influencing interpretation and uptake of feedback identified in this sample are relevant to health professional learners and physicians beyond the study participants.

    “Multiple influences appear to impact upon the interpretation and uptake of feedback.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Positive outcomes can arise by chance just as readily as negative outcomes.

    “positive outcomes can arise by chance just as readily as can negative outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Feedback is never provided in a vacuum.

    “Feedback is never provided in a vacuum.”
4 of 4

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eva, K. W., Armson, H., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., & Sargeant, J.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • American Board of Internal Medicine (US)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Eva, Kevin W.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2011-04-06
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
15-26
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2022212199
Cited by
402
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 10
FWCI
16.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
feedback acceptance, formative feedback, self-assessment, self-confidence, feedback interpretation, professional development, health professions education, continuing competence, feedback delivery
MeSH terms
Fear, Feedback, Humans, Teaching, Thinking, Focus Groups, Self Efficacy, Biomedical Technology

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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