What would you like to ask your audience? Enhancing feedback value in PM&R grand rounds through customizable evaluation forms with presenter-generated questions.
Journal
PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1934-1563
Titre abrégé: PM R
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101491319
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 May 2023
04 May 2023
Historique:
revised:
02
04
2023
received:
24
07
2022
accepted:
12
04
2023
medline:
27
6
2023
pubmed:
27
6
2023
entrez:
27
6
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Feedback and evaluation are important in the professional development of academic physiatrists. Yet, physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) learners giving academic presentations receive limited narrative feedback through generic evaluation forms. To assess whether customizable evaluation forms that integrate a presenter's specific questions would be associated with an increase in quantity and quality of narrative feedback received from the audience. Separate samples pre-post intervention study. A large academic PM&R department's grand rounds. PM&R faculty and trainees attending grand rounds (10-50 attendees with one presenter per session). The study included 20 presentations pre intervention (across 1 year) and 38 presentations post intervention (across about 3 years). A customizable evaluation form that integrates a presenter's own questions into a tailored evaluation form comprising both standardized and presenter-built questions. Narrative feedback quantity was defined as the mean percentage and number of evaluation forms per presentation with at least one comment. Narrative feedback quality included three metrics: mean percentage and number of evaluation forms per presentation with comments that (1) contained ≥8 words, (2) referenced something specific, and (3) offered an actionable suggestion. Compared to preintervention, presentations in the postintervention period had a greater mean percentage of evaluation forms containing at least one comment (pre = 33.4%, post =74.7%, p < .001), a comment that contained ≥8 words (pre = 20.2%, post = 44.2%, p < .001), a comment that referenced something specific (pre = 19.6%, post = 55.1%, p < .001), and a comment that offered an actionable suggestion (pre = 10.2%, post = 22.2%, p < .001). Use of a customizable evaluation form in PM&R grand rounds that integrates a presenter's own questions was associated with a greater mean percentage of evaluation forms containing comments as well as comments meeting quality metrics related to length, specificity, and actionability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Feedback and evaluation are important in the professional development of academic physiatrists. Yet, physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) learners giving academic presentations receive limited narrative feedback through generic evaluation forms.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether customizable evaluation forms that integrate a presenter's specific questions would be associated with an increase in quantity and quality of narrative feedback received from the audience.
DESIGN
METHODS
Separate samples pre-post intervention study.
SETTING
METHODS
A large academic PM&R department's grand rounds.
PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
PM&R faculty and trainees attending grand rounds (10-50 attendees with one presenter per session). The study included 20 presentations pre intervention (across 1 year) and 38 presentations post intervention (across about 3 years).
INTERVENTION
METHODS
A customizable evaluation form that integrates a presenter's own questions into a tailored evaluation form comprising both standardized and presenter-built questions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
METHODS
Narrative feedback quantity was defined as the mean percentage and number of evaluation forms per presentation with at least one comment. Narrative feedback quality included three metrics: mean percentage and number of evaluation forms per presentation with comments that (1) contained ≥8 words, (2) referenced something specific, and (3) offered an actionable suggestion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Compared to preintervention, presentations in the postintervention period had a greater mean percentage of evaluation forms containing at least one comment (pre = 33.4%, post =74.7%, p < .001), a comment that contained ≥8 words (pre = 20.2%, post = 44.2%, p < .001), a comment that referenced something specific (pre = 19.6%, post = 55.1%, p < .001), and a comment that offered an actionable suggestion (pre = 10.2%, post = 22.2%, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Use of a customizable evaluation form in PM&R grand rounds that integrates a presenter's own questions was associated with a greater mean percentage of evaluation forms containing comments as well as comments meeting quality metrics related to length, specificity, and actionability.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Research.Innovation.Scholarship.Education (RISE) initiative at the University of Michigan
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Références
Cavallo J. How to Give Effective Presentation Feedback: A Conversation with Sam J. FACP. The ASCO Post; 2019.
Henderson M, Phillips M, Ryan T, et al. Conditions that enable effective feedback. High Educ Res Dev. 2019;38(7):1401-1416.
Molloy E, Boud D. Seeking a different angle on feedback in clinical education: the learner as seeker, judge and user of performance information. Med Educ. 2013;47:227-229.
Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ. 2006;31(2):199-218.
Van Hell EA, Kuks JB, Raat A, Van Lohuizen MT, Cohen-Schotanus J. Instructiveness of feedback during clerkships: influence of supervisor, observation and student initiative. Med Teach. 2009;31(1):45-50.
Milan FB, Dyche L, Fletcher J. “How am I doing?” teaching medical students to elicit feedback during their clerkships. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):904-910.
Moroz A, Horlick M, Mandalaywala N, Stern DT. Faculty feedback that begins with resident self-assessment: motivation is the key to success. Med Educ. 2018;52(3):314-323.
Shaughness G, Georgoff PE, Sandhu G, et al. Assessment of clinical feedback given to medical students via an electronic feedback system. J Surg Res. 2017;218:174-179.
Georgoff PE, Shaughness G, Leininger L, et al. Evaluating the performance of the minute feedback system: a web-based feedback tool for medical students. Am J Surg. 2018;215(2):293-297.
Robertson AC, Fowler LC. Medical student perceptions of learner-initiated feedback using a mobile web application. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2017;4:2382120517746384.
Raymond BL, Fowler LC, Robertson AC. The impact of converting from an ‘educator-driven'to a ‘learner-initiated'feedback model. J Educ Perioper Med. 2019;21(3):E627.
Niehaus WNLS, Sliwa J, Apkon S. From ROCA to RISE: Over 400% Increase in the Volume of Feedback Data with Resident Initiated Method. Poster presented at: 2021 Annual Meeting of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP); February 9-13, 2021; virtual.
Fainstad T, Patton KK, Mookherjee S. Feedback Paradigm Shift: Encouraging Learners to Seek the Feedback They Need. SGIM Forum. 2017;40(12).
Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;14(4):595-621.
Pinsky LE, Irby DM. “If at first you don't succeed”: using failure to improve teaching. Acad Med. 1997;72(11):973-976.
Pinsky LE, Monson D, Irby DM. How excellent teachers are made: reflecting on success to improve teaching. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1998;3(3):207-215.