Cited by 84Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students’ perceptions about feedback.

Open access
Murdoch‐Eaton, Deborah, Sargeant, Joan·2012·Medical Education

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although medical students receive varied feedback throughout their training programmes, research demonstrates that they frequently perceive it as insufficient. However, supervisors tend to perceive that it is adequate. Students' responses to, and use of, feedback are not clearly understood. The purposes of this study were to investigate how medical students recognise, respond to and utilise feedback, and to determine whether there are maturational differences in understandings of the role of feedback across academic years in medical school. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study collecting qualitative (focus group and open-ended questionnaire items) and quantitative (questionnaire) data across the 5 years of an undergraduate programme. RESULTS: A total of 68 students participated in 10 focus groups. The questionnaire response rate was 46% (564/1233). Data analysis investigated the students' perceptions of feedback and explored patterns of responses across the continuum of undergraduate medical school stages. Maturational differences among the year cohorts within the programme emerged in three general areas: (i) student perceptions of the purpose of feedback; (ii) student recognition of feedback, and (iii) student perceptions regarding the credibility of feedback providers. CONCLUSIONS: Junior students generally perceived the receiving of feedback as a passive activity and preferred positive feedback that confirmed their progress and provided reassurance. More senior students viewed feedback as informing their specific learning needs and personal development. They valued immediate informal verbal feedback and feedback from peers and others, as well as that from senior teachers. Exploring students' progressive degrees of engagement with feedback and its relationship with self-esteem are subjects for further study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04291.x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murdoch‐Eaton, D., & Sargeant, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Murdoch‐Eaton, Deborah
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-12
Volume
46
Issue
7
Pages
711-721
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1587496290
Cited by
83
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Leeds
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
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
feedback, medical students, student perceptions, undergraduate medical education, feedback credibility, peer feedback, verbal feedback, self-esteem, student engagement with feedback
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Feedback, United Kingdom, Humans, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Focus Groups

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