Table 3.

The percentage of e-portfolios that met the different SRL criteria for good practice from the codebook. The numbers in front of the criteria correspond to the item numbers of the codebook (Appendix A). The codebook describes the instructions used to decide if the criteria were met

Criteria from the codebook	How many e-portfolios fulfilled the criterium (%) N = 90
Reflection
4. Presence of reflective forms	54.4%(n = 49)
5. If present, at what level
Not reflective	83.7% (n = 41)
Descriptive reflection	16.3%(n = 8)
Dialogic reflection	0% (n = 0)
Critical reflection	0% (n = 0)
Feedback Teacher
6. For which competences was feedback provided?
Medical Expert	85.6%(n = 77)
Communicator	92.2%(n = 83)
Collaborator	87.7%(n = 79)
Leader	87.8%(n = 79)
Health Advocate	65.6%(n = 59)
Scholar	84.4%(n = 76)
Professional	94.4% (n = 85)
None	0% (n = 0)
7. Specificity Was the feedback provided specific enough?	27.8%(n = 25)
8. Focus Did the feedback provided have an appropriate focus?	91.1%(n = 82)
9. Purpose Was the feedback provided in line with the purpose of the specific form?	58.9%(n = 53)
10. Source Were the criteria/source upon which the feedback was based clear?	57.8%(n = 52)
11. Level Did the provided feedback give insight into the level the trainee must attain?	13.3% (n = 12)
Feedback Supervisor
13. For which competences was feedback provided?
Medical Expert	86.7%(n = 78)
Communicator	76.7%(n = 69)
Collaborator	37.8% (n = 34)
Leader	34.4%(n = 31)
Health Advocate	21.1%(n = 19)
Scholar	21.1%(n = 19)
Professional	36.7%(n = 33)
None	1.1%(n = 1)
14. Specificity Was the feedback provided specific enough?	35.6%(n = 32)
15. Focus Did the feedback provided have an appropriate focus?	87.8%(n = 79)
16. Purpose Was the feedback provided in line with the purpose of the specific form?	73.3%(n = 66)
17. Source Were the criteria/source upon which the feedback was based clear?	57.8%(n = 52)
18. Level Did the feedback provided give insight in the level the trainee must attain?	33.3%(n = 30)
Goal-Setting and Planning
20. Specificity Were the formulated learning goals specific?	44.4%(n = 40)
21. Proximity Were the formulated learning goals proximal (≤4 months)?	23.3%(n = 21)
22. Congruence Were the formulated learning goals in congruence with each other?	87.8%(n = 79)
23. Challenging Were the formulated learning goals challenging?	97.8%(n = 88)
24. Origin Were the formulated learning goals of a personal origin?	64.4%(n = 58)
Monitoring
25. Monitoring Did the e-portfolio show signs of monitoring?	74.4%(n = 67)