Cited by 31Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackMental Health and Patient Involvement

Experts by experience; the views of service user educators providing feedback on medical students' work based assessments

Muir, Delia, Laxton, Julie Clare·2012·Nurse Education Today

Abstract

Assessment tools were designed to provide health and social care students with multi-sourced, interprofessional feedback in practice. This includes feedback from service users. Third year medical students at the University of Leeds were given accesses to 4 assessment tools whilst in practice. Completed assessments were then sent to the university where service users and carers worked with university tutors to give further feedback and comment on the overall development of students. Three service users then took part in a focus group and one provided written feedback. Four key themes were identified from the focus group: • Preparation and support • The design of the tools • The process of using the tools in practice • Feedback. We found that the project provided both challenges and rewards for all involved. The service user educators involved were able to bring a different and valuable perspective to formative feedback. The combination of their personal and professional experiences, along with the preparation they had received, helped bridge the gap between service users in practice and university based tutors. The findings from this study went on to inform a review of the assessment tools and revised versions are now being used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.08.015

Cites

21 of 21 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

3 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muir, D., & Laxton, J. C.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Muir, Delia
Venue
Nurse Education Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
146-150
ISSN
0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136762855
Cited by
31
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education Today (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
service user feedback, formative assessment, workplace-based assessment, medical students, health and social care education, scale development, experiential learning
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, United Kingdom, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Participation, Students, Medical

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