Table 4.
Objective analysis of the quality of the feedback (n = 140 videotaped “direct observation” feedback sessions)
| Objective analysis | All Tutors | Generalists | Specialists | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 35 | n = 21 | n = 14 | |||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | p | Adjusted p* | |
| Content (number of comments per feedback on...) | |||||
| Global performance | 0.64 (0.66) | 0.54 (0.60) | 0.77 (0.72) | 0.039 | 0.264 |
| History taking | 4.76 (3.51) | 5.73 (3.75) | 3.54 (2.77) | <0.001 | 0.160 |
| Physical examination | 5.17 (3.05) | 5.73 (3.17) | 4.47 (2.76) | 0.014 | 0.372 |
| Explanation-end | 1.01 (1.03) | 0.92 (1.10) | 1.13 (0.93) | 0.242 | 0.169 |
| Communication | 2.30 (1.70) | 2.61 (1.89) | 1.92 (1.32) | 0.015 | 0.230 |
| Elaboration- clinical reasoning | 1.56 (1.53) | 1.76 (1.57) | 1.32 (1.45) | 0.09 | 0.768 |
| Elaboration- communication/professionalism | 1.46 (1.39) | 1.96 (1.41) | 0.82 (1.06) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Process (Likert 0: completely disagree - 5: completely agree) | |||||
| The tutor explored students’ learning needs | 2.67 (1.53) | 3.49 (0.90) | 1.67 (1.54) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The tutor stimulated students’ self-assessment | 2.30 (1.53) | 3.07 (1.11) | 1.37 (1.45) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The feedback was descriptive | 3.63 (1.22) | 4.12 (0.92) | 3.00 (1.27) | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| The feedback was subjective (using “I”) | 3.16 (1.85) | 3.99 (1.52) | 2.11 (1.70) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The feedback was balanced | 3.78 (1.27) | 4.23 (0.90) | 3.21 (1.44) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The supervisor took into account the student’s self-assessment | 2.30 (1.65) | 3.19 (1.27) | 1.23 (1.42) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The tutor stimulated students to participate to the problem solving process | 2.96 (1.13) | 3.55 (0.86) | 2.21 (0.98) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| The tutor used role-playing or hands on to give students the opportunity to practice parts of the consultation | 1.18 (1.30) | 1.49 (1.38) | 0.78 (1.08) | 0.001 | 0.036 |
| The tutor checked students’ understanding at the end of the idem | 2.70 (1.60) | 3.67 (1.14) | 1.47 (1.20) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Transversal dimensions | |||||
| Empathy | 3.92 (1.02) | 4.46 (0.62) | 3.24 (1.02) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Pedagogical effectiveness | 3.14 (1.23) | 3.86 (0.86) | 2.23 (1.00) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Structure of the feed-back | 3.11 (1.25) | 3.95 (0.79) | 2.05 (0.86) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Verbal interaction | 3.33 (1.05) | 3.74 (0.99) | 2.81 (0.88) | <0.001 | 0.002 |
| Global evaluation | 3.30 (1.07) | 4.01 (0.61) | 2.40 (0.82) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
*using a model taking into account the type of OSCE (fixed effect), and the supervisor (random effect)