CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 500Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7

Veloski, Jon, Boex, James R., Grasberger, Margaret J., Evans, Adam, Wolfson, Daniel B.·2006·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.1080/01421590600622665
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: There is a basis for the assumption that feedback can be used to enhance physicians' performance. Nevertheless, the findings of empirical studies of the impact of feedback on clinical performance have been equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence related to the impact of assessment and feedback on physicians' clinical performance. SEARCH STRATEGY: The authors searched the literature from 1966 to 2003 using MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, the Science Citation Index and eight other electronic databases. A total of 3702 citations were identified. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Empirical studies were selected involving the baseline measurement of physicians' performance and follow-up measurement after they received summaries of their performance. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on research design, sample, dependent and independent variables using a written protocol. DATA SYNTHESIS: A group of 220 studies involving primary data collection was identified. However, only 41 met all selection criteria and evaluated the independent effect of feedback on physician performance. Of these, 32 (74%) demonstrated a positive impact. Feedback was more likely to be effective when provided by an authoritative source over an extended period of time. Another subset of 132 studies examined the effect of feedback combined with other interventions such as educational programmes, practice guidelines and reminders. Of these, 106 studies (77%) demonstrated a positive impact. Two additional subsets of 29 feedback studies involving resident physicians in training and 18 studies examining proxy measures of physician performance across clinical sites or groups of patients were reviewed. The majority of these two subsets also reported that feedback had positive effects on performance. HEADLINE RESULTS: Feedback can change physicians' clinical performance when provided systematically over multiple years by an authoritative, credible source. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of formal assessment and feedback on physician performance are influenced by the source and duration of feedback. Other factors, such as physicians' active involvement in the process, the amount of information reported, the timing and amount of feedback, and other concurrent interventions, such as education, guidelines, reminder systems and incentives, also appear to be important. However, the independent contributions of these interventions have not been well documented in controlled studies. It is recommended that the designers of future theoretical as well as practical studies of feedback separate the effects of feedback from other concurrent interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01421590600622665

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Multisource feedback, which often integrates written and verbal elements, improved medical students' interpersonal skills and clinical reasoning.

    “For instance, Veloski et al. [109] demonstrated that multisource feedback, which often integrates written and verbal elements, improved medical students' interpersonal skills and clinical reasoning, highlighting the value of a multimodal approach to feedback delivery.”

    From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [109]

  • Institutions can create opportunities for longitudinal teacher-learner relationships to flourish, such as extended placements.

    “Institutions can create opportunities for longitudinal teacher-learner relationships to flourish, such as extended placements [68–70].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [68]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Veloski, J., Boex, J. R., Grasberger, M. J., Evans, A., & Wolfson, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • Northeast Ohio Medical University (US)
  • ABIM Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Veloski, Jon
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2006-01
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
117-128
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.1080/01421590600622665
OpenAlex
W1985455827
Cited by
500
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 31
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • 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
physician performance feedback, clinical performance assessment, feedback effectiveness, medical residents, educational intervention, clinical guidelines, reminder systems, incentives
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Feedback, Humans, Physicians

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