CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: a meta‐review

Open access
van de Ridder, J M Monica, McGaghie, William C, Stokking, Karel M, ten Cate, Olle T J·2015·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.12744
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context: Feedback is considered important in medical education. The literature is not clear about the mechanisms that contribute to its effects, which are often small to moderate and at times contradictory. A variety of variables seem to influence the impact of feedback on learning. The aim of this study was to determine which variables influence the process and outcomes of feedback in settings relevant to medical education. Methods: A myriad of studies on feedback have been conducted. To determine the most researched variables, we limited our review to meta‐analyses and literature reviews published in the period from January 1986 to February 2012. According to our protocol, we first identified features of the feedback process that influence its effects and subsequently variables that influence these features. We used a chronological model of the feedback process to categorise all variables found. Results: A systematic search of ERIC , Psyc INFO and MEDLINE yielded 1101 publications, which we reduced to 203, rejecting papers on six exclusion criteria. Of these, 46 met the inclusion criteria. In our four‐phase model, we identified 33 variables linked to task performance (e.g. task complexity, task nature) and feedback reception (e.g. self‐esteem, goal‐setting behaviour) by trainees, and to observation (e.g. focus, intensity) and feedback provision (e.g. form, content) by supervisors that influence the subsequent effects of the feedback process. Variables from all phases influence the feedback process and effects, but variables that influence the quality of the observation and rating of the performance dominate the literature. There is a paucity of studies addressing other, seemingly relevant variables. Conclusions: The larger picture of variables that influence the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical education, shows many open spaces. We suggest that targeted studies be carried out to expand our knowledge of these important aspects of feedback in medical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12744

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Feedback is most effective if directed at unsatisfactory elements of performance and linked to specific learning aims.

    “It is most effective if directed at unsatisfactory elements of performance and linked to specific learning aims [23].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

  • There are many factors which influence the effect of feedback, and the choice of how to deliver feedback depends on the task, the recipient and the feedback relationship.

    “There are many factors which influence the effect of feedback, and the choice of how to deliver the feedback will depend on the task, the recipient and the feedback relationship [23].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

  • Feedback is more likely to have a positive than a negative effect.

    “In the studies described, feedback is more likely to have a positive than a negative effect, but what we cannot be sure of as feedback providers is which of these is more likely in a given feedback situation, although there are predictive factors [23].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
van de Ridder, J. M. M., McGaghie, W. C., Stokking, K. M., & ten Cate, O. T. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Education Albert Schweitzer Hospital Dordrecht the Netherlands
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Center for Research and Development of Education University Medical Centre Utrecht School of Medical Sciences Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands
ORCID
McGaghie, William C
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-15
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
658-673
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.12744
OpenAlex
W2142534545
Cited by
154
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
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, feedback mechanisms, feedback reception, task complexity, self-esteem, observation, supervisor feedback, trainee learning, feedback quality
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Feedback, Goals, Humans, Learning, Self Concept, Task Performance and Analysis

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