Feedback on Oral Presentations During Pediatric Clerkships: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effects of participating in structured oral presentation evaluation sessions early in pediatric clerkships on students' subsequent presentations. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, 3-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial during pediatric clerkships at Boston University School of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. Blocks of students at each school were randomly assigned to experience either (1) no formal presentation feedback (control) or a small-group presentation feedback session early in pediatric clerkships in which students gave live presentations and received feedback from faculty who rated their presentations by using a (2) single-item (simple) or (3) 18-item (detailed) evaluation form. At the clerkship end, overall quality of subjects’ presentations was rated by faculty blinded to randomization status, and subjects reported whether their presentations had improved. Analyses included multivariable linear and logistic regressions clustered on clerkship block that controlled for medical school. RESULTS: A total of 476 participants were evenly divided into the 3 arms, which had similar characteristics. Compared with controls, presentation quality was significantly associated with participating in detailed (coefficient: 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07–0.69) but not simple (coefficient: 0.16; 95% CI: −0.12–0.43) feedback sessions. Similarly, student self-report of presentation improvement was significantly associated with participating in detailed (odds ratio: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11–4.18] but not simple (odds ratio: 1.89; 95% CI: 0.91–3.93) feedback sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Small-group presentation feedback sessions led by faculty using a detailed evaluation form resulted in clerkship students delivering oral presentations of higher quality compared with controls.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The quality of feedback improves after specific training of clinical faculty.
“It is encouraging that this need not be the case, and the quality of feedback improves after specific training of clinical faculty [29, 54, 55].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
Cites
Hulley, S. B. (1997) · Cited by 1,753 · see citing works
Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.416 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
The Effect of Clustering of Outcomes on the Association of Procedure Volume and Surgical Outcomes
Panageas, K. S., Schrag, D., Riedel, E., Bach, P. B., & Begg, C. B. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-8-200310210-00009 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Developments in cluster randomized trials and Statistics in Medicine
Campbell, M. J., Donner, A. P., & Klar, N. S. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2731 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Learning oral presentation skills
Haber, R. J., & Lingard, L. A. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00233.x · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Cluster randomized controlled trials
Puffer, S., Torgerson, D. J., & Watson, J. M. (2005) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00568.x · Cited by 158 · see citing works
What’s the Story? Expectations for Oral Case Presentations
Dell, M., Lewin, L. O., & Gigante, J. (2012) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1014 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationPreuß, D., Schoofs, D., Schlotz, W., & Wolf, O. T. (2010) · Stress · doi:10.3109/10253890903277579 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
E-learning and deliberate practice for oral case presentation skills: A randomized trial
Heiman, H. L., Uchida, T. L., Adams, C., Butter, J., Cohen, E. R., Persell, S. D., Pribaz, P. J., McGaghie, W. C., & Martin, G. J. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.714879 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Wiese, J., Varosy, P. D., & Tierney, L. M. (2002) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(01)01085-3 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Kim, S., Kogan, J. R., Bellini, L. M., & Shea, J. A. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0140.x · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Developing and Implementing Universal Guidelines for Oral Patient Presentation Skills
Green, E. H., Hershman, W. Y., DeCherrie, L. V., et al. (2005) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15328015tlm1703_11 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Interrater Reliability of an Oral Case Presentation Rating Tool in a Pediatric Clerkship
Lewin, L. O., Beraho, L., Dolan, S., et al. (2013) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2012.741537 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationKoepsell, T. D., & Weiss, N. S. (2004) · Epidemiologic Methods · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150780.003.0005 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sox, C. M., Dell, M., Phillipi, C. A., Cabral, H. J., Vargas, G., & Lewin, L. O.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Hasbro Children's Hospital (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2014-11-01
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 965-971
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2089086583
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- pediatric clerkship, medical students, presentation quality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Communication, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Pediatrics, Program Evaluation, Single-Blind Method, Young Adult
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
