Cited by 686Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What is feedback in clinical education?

Van De Ridder, J M Monica, Stokking, Karel M, McGaghie, William C, Ten Cate, Olle Th J·2008·Medical Education

Abstract

Objective Feedback is important in clinical education. However, the medical education literature provides no consensual definition of feedback. The aim of this study is to propose a consensual, research‐based, operational definition of feedback in clinical education. An operational definition is needed for educational practice and teacher training, and for research into the effectiveness of different types of feedback. Methods A literature search about definitions of feedback was performed in general sources, meta‐analyses and literature reviews in the social sciences and other fields. Feedback definitions given from 1995 to 2006 in the medical education literature are also reviewed. Results Three underlying concepts were found, defining feedback as ‘information’; as ‘reaction’, including information, and as a ‘cycle’, including both information and reaction. In most medical education and social science literature, feedback is usually conceptualised as information only. Comparison of feedback definitions in medical education reveals at least 9 different features. The following operational definition is proposed. Feedback is: ‘Specific information about the comparison between a trainee’s observed performance and a standard, given with the intent to improve the trainee’s performance.’ Conclusions Different conceptual representations and the use of different key features might be a cause for inconsistent definitions of feedback. The characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of this research‐based operational definition are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02973.x

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Sheenan TJ, 1984, Feedback: giving and receiving, J Med Educ, 59, 913
  2. Isaacson JH, 1995, Resident perception of the evaluation process, J Gen Intern Med, 10, 89
  3. Oxford English Dictionary Online
  4. Good CV, 1973, Dictionary of Education, 227
  5. Weiner N, 1950, The Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society
  6. Nadler DA, 1977, Feedback and Organisational Development: Using Data‐based Methods
  7. 10.1007/978-1-4684-6328-6 · DOI
  8. Westberg J, 1991, A CIS Guidebook for Health Professions Teachers

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 686

Metadata

Authors
Van De Ridder, J. M. M., Stokking, K. M., McGaghie, W. C., & Ten Cate, O. T. J.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-22
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
189-197
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1807214239
Cited by
686
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 27
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
feedback, clinical teaching, operational definitions, trainee performance, performance standards, teacher professional development, feedback loops
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Feedback, Social Sciences, Teaching, Clinical Medicine, Observation

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