Cited by 81Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Examining the barriers to meaningful assessment and feedback in medical training

McQueen, Sydney A., Petrisor, Bradley, Bhandari, Mohit, Fahim, Christine, McKinnon, Victoria, Sonnadara, Ranil R.·2016·The American Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background Recent reports from both accreditation bodies in North America highlight problems with current assessment practices in postgraduate medical training. Previous work has shown that educators might be reluctant to report poor performance or fail underperforming trainees. This study explores the barriers perceived by medical educators to providing more meaningful assessment and feedback to trainees.Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 physician educators. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Three researchers analyzed the transcripts using a grounded theory approach.Results Participants expressed a reluctance to provide poor assessments or feedback to trainees. Fifty-five percent of the participants reported passing trainees who could have benefited from additional training. Our data revealed a number of barriers which may account for these findings. Implementing more frequent formative assessments could help educators more effectively evaluate trainees and provide feedback, although a shift in the culture of medicine may be required.Conclusion It is imperative that the barriers to effective assessment and feedback identified in this study be addressed to improve postgraduate medical training and enhance patient care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.10.002

Cites

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?

  • The complexity of implementing effective formative assessment and feedback systems is amplified by the scale and diversity of medical education programs.

    “The complexity of implementing effective formative assessment and feedback systems is further amplified by the scale and diversity of medical education programs [11].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 81

Authors
McQueen, S. A., Petrisor, B., Bhandari, M., Fahim, C., McKinnon, V., & Sonnadara, R. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sonnadara, Ranil R.
Venue
The American Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
211
Issue
2
Pages
464-475
ISSN
0002-9610 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143662742
Cited by
81
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Surgery (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
graduate medical education, medical education assessment, trainee feedback, barriers to assessment, physician educators, formative assessment, medical culture
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Canada, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, General Surgery, Grounded Theory

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