CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 231Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Feedback and the educational alliance: Examining credibility judgements and their consequences.

Telio, Summer, Regehr, Glenn, Ajjawi, Rola·2016·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.13063
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context: Several recent studies have documented the fact that, in considering feedback, learners are actively making credibility judgements about the feedback and its source. Yet few have intentionally explored such judgements to gain a deeper understanding of how the process works or how these judgements might interact to influence engagement with and interpretation of feedback. Using the educational alliance framework, we sought to elaborate an understanding of learners’ credibility judgements and their consequences. Methods: Using constructivist grounded theory we conducted semi‐structured interviews with psychiatry residents. We used a theoretical sampling approach that invited participants with diverse scores based on a previously published feedback survey and an investigator‐developed educational alliance inventory. Consistent with the principles of grounded theory analysis, data were collected and analysed in an iterative process to identify themes. Results: Participants depicted themselves as actively contemplating feedback and considering it thoughtfully in light of complex judgements regarding their supervisor, the relationship with their supervisor and the larger context in which the feedback interactions were occurring. These judgements focused on the supervisor's credibility both as a clinician and as a partner in the educational alliance. The educational alliance is judged by trainees in relation to the supervisor's engagement as an educator, commitment to promoting growth of residents and positive attitude toward them. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that credibility is a multifaceted judgement that occurs not only at the moment of the feedback interaction but early in and throughout an educational relationship. It not only affects a learner's engagement with a particular piece of feedback at the moment of delivery, but also has consequences for future engagement with (or avoidance of) further learning interactions with the supervisor. These findings can help medical educators develop a more meaningful understanding of the context in which feedback takes place.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.13063

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?

  • In human relations, perceiving that another has one's best interests at heart leads to increased credibility and a strengthened relational bond.

    “They may start to think that a generative AI has their best interests at heart, which in human relations leads to not only increased credibility but a strengthened relational bond (Telio, Regehr, and Ajjawi Citation2016).”

    From Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as Telio, Regehr, and Ajjawi 2016

  • Invested, credible supervisors and a supportive, open culture are integral to positive learning and coaching in medicine and education.

    “Invested, credible supervisors 2,4-7 and a supportive, open culture [33][34][35][36] are integral to positive learning and coaching in medicine 8 and education.16,19”

    From The R2C2 Model in Residency Education: How Does It Foster Coaching and Promote Feedback Use? (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Telio, S., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Ajjawi, Rola
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-26
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
933-942
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.13063
OpenAlex
W2509125294
Cited by
231
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
21.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of British Columbia
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
feedback, educational alliances, supervisor-learner relationship, psychiatric residents
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Cooperative Behavior, Education, Medical, Graduate, Feedback, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interprofessional Relations, Judgment, Learning, Thinking, Grounded Theory

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