CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Feedback in the OSCE: What Do Residents Remember?

Humphrey-Murto, Susan, Mihok, Marika, Pugh, Debra, Touchie, Claire, Halman, Samantha, Wood, Timothy J.·2016·Teaching and Learning in Medicine
DOI 10.1080/10401334.2015.1107487
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

THEORY: The move to competency-based education has heightened the importance of direct observation of clinical skills and effective feedback. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is widely used for assessment and affords an opportunity for both direct observation and feedback to occur simultaneously. For feedback to be effective, it should include direct observation, assessment of performance, provision of feedback, reflection, decision making, and use of feedback for learning and change. HYPOTHESES: If one of the goals of feedback is to engage students to think about their performance (i.e., reflection), it would seem imperative that they can recall this feedback both immediately and into the future. This study explores recall of feedback in the context of an OSCE. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to (a) determine the amount and the accuracy of feedback that trainees remember immediately after an OSCE, as well as 1 month later, and (b) assess whether prompting immediate recall improved delayed recall. METHODS: Internal medicine residents received 2 minutes of verbal feedback from physician examiners in the context of an OSCE. The feedback was audio-recorded and later transcribed. Residents were randomly allocated to the immediate recall group (immediate-RG; n = 10) or the delayed recall group (delayed-RG; n = 8). The immediate-RG completed a questionnaire prompting recall of feedback received immediately after the OSCE, and then again 1 month later. The delayed-RG completed a questionnaire only 1 month after the OSCE. The total number and accuracy of feedback points provided by examiners were compared to the points recalled by residents. Results comparing recall at 1 month between the immediate-RG and the delayed-RG were also studied. RESULTS: Physician examiners provided considerably more feedback points (M = 16.3) than the residents recalled immediately after the OSCE (M = 2.61, p < .001). There was no significant difference between the number of feedback points recalled upon completion of the OSCE (2.61) compared to 1 month later (M = 1.96, p = .06, Cohen's d = .70). Prompting immediate recall did not improve later recall. The mean accuracy score for feedback recall immediately after the OSCE was 4.3/9 or "somewhat representative," and at 1 month the score dropped to 3.5/9 or "not representative" (ns). CONCLUSION: Residents recall very few feedback points immediately after the OSCE and 1 month later. The feedback points that are recalled are neither very accurate nor representative of the feedback actually provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2015.1107487

Cites

37 of 37 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Humphrey-Murto, S., Mihok, M., Pugh, D., Touchie, C., Halman, S., & Wood, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Humphrey-Murto, Susan
ORCID
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-01-02
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
52-60
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
DOI
10.1080/10401334.2015.1107487
OpenAlex
W2282933206
Cited by
33
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (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
OSCE, clinical skills assessment, internal medicine residents, verbal feedback, delayed recall, reflection, competency-based education, feedback accuracy, medical education
MeSH terms
Educational Measurement, Feedback, Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Tape Recording

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