The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Kleij and Lipnevich's (2021) review of the literature found a relationship between emotions and perceptions of feedback, both negative and positive, and an association between negative emotions and vague or unclear feedback.”
From The Next Black Box of Formative Assessment: A Model of the Internal Mechanisms of Feedback Processing (2022) · cites this paper as Kleij and Lipnevich's (2021)
In the citing paper
“We concur with the conclusion made by Van der Kleij and Lipnevich (2021) in their critical scoping review of students' perceptions of feedback: research on this topic involves “a wide range of examined variables” (p.367) and lacks a common theoretical framework.”
From The Next Black Box of Formative Assessment: A Model of the Internal Mechanisms of Feedback Processing (2022) · cites this paper as Van der Kleij and Lipnevich (2021)
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 6×
“The successive snowballing search involved searching for studies that had cited two widely cited articles on formative assessment and feedback in education: Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Black and Wiliam (1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAssessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 3×
“There are plentiful research studies examining the effectiveness of feedback for students’ academic attainment (e.g. reviews by Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Shute, 2008; Lipnevich & Smith, 2018).”
BackgroundVisible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement
Carter, M. (2009) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410903415150 · Cited by 7,696
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050 · Cited by 7,472
Educational Research: An Introduction
Dale, R. R., & Borg, W. R. (1965) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3119062 · Cited by 7,218
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSIEP), 1(2), 1–12.
- Thomson Reuters Endnote X7. (2013). Clarivate Analytics Endnote (version X7). [Computer software]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics Available from https://endnote.com/downloads/.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389
Self-citationYan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2021.1884042 · Cited by 252
Revisiting “The Power of Feedback” from the perspective of the learner
Mandouit, L., & Hattie, J. (2022) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101718 · Cited by 161
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 189
“The challenge for educators is to secure unbiased feedback and identify AI ‘hallucinations’ as accurate and appropriate feedback is critical in students’ conceptual and cognitive development (Van der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021).”
BackgroundStudent – Feedback Interaction Model: Revised
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2022) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101208 · Cited by 125
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Van der Kleij, F. M., & Lipnevich, A. A.
- Affiliations
- Queens College, CUNY (US)
- Venue
- Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
- Published
- 2020-08-17
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 345-373
- ISSN
- 1874-8597 (ISSN-L)
- 1874-8600
- OpenAlex
- W3071396940
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 18.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Queensland Government, Advance Queensland Women’s Academic Fund
- Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
- Keywords
- assessment feedback, student perceptions, feedback uptake, feedback effectiveness
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
