CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness

Sargeant, Joan, Mann, Karen, Ferrier, Suzanne·2005·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02124.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Physician performance is comprised of several domains of professional competence. Multisource feedback (MSF) or 360‐degree feedback is an approach used to assess these, particularly the humanistic and relational competencies. Research studying responses to performance assessment shows that reactions vary and can influence how performance feedback is used. Improvement does not always result, especially when feedback is perceived as negative. This small qualitative study undertook preliminary exploration of physicians' reactions to MSF, and perceptions influencing these and the acceptance and use of their feedback. Methods We held focus groups with 15 family physicians participating in an MSF pilot study. Qualitative analyses included content and constant comparative analyses. Results Participants agreed that the purpose of MSF assessment should be to enhance practice and generally agreed with their patients' feedback. However, responses to medical colleague and co‐worker feedback ranged from positive to negative. Several participants who responded negatively did not agree with their feedback nor were inclined to use it for practice improvement. Reactions were influenced by perceptions of accuracy, credibility and usefulness of feedback. Factors shaping these perceptions included: recruiting credible reviewers, ability of reviewers to make objective assessments, use of the assessment tool and specificity of the feedback. Conclusion Physicians' perceptions of the MSF process and feedback can influence how and if they use the feedback for practice improvement. These findings are important, raising the concern that feedback perceived as negative and not useful will have no or negative results, and highlight questions for further study.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02124.x

Cites

30 of 30 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

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bracken DW, 2001, The Handbook for Multisource Feedback
  2. Thompson PH, 1970, Performance appraisal: managers beware, Harvard Business Rev, 48, 149
  3. 10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Alberta's Physician Achievement Review (PAR) Program: A review of the first three years.College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.Available at:http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/collegeprograms/attachments/par_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2004.
  5. Alberta's Physician Achievement Review (PAR) Program.College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Available at:http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/collegeprograms/par_program.asp. Accessed 28 April 2004.
  6. Nova Scotia Physician Achievement Review (NSPAR) Program.College of Physician and Surgeons of Nova Scotia.Available at:http://www.nspar.ca/. Accessed 28 April 2004.
  7. 10.1093/sw/46.2.125 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 174

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., & Ferrier, S.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sargeant, Joan
ORCID
Sargeant, Joan
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-04
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
497-504
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02124.x
OpenAlex
W2158642891
Cited by
174
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
11.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
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
multisource feedback, 360-degree feedback, general practitioners, feedback credibility, perceived usefulness, performance evaluation (human resources), peer feedback, patient feedback, practice improvement
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Female, Humans, Male, Nova Scotia, Perception, Physicians, Family, Pilot Projects, Rural Health, Sensitivity and Specificity, Urban Health, Focus Groups, Feedback, Psychological

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