Table 2.
Summary of results
| Authors and year | Database | Location | Study type | Participants | Influencing factors of credibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duijn et al. (2017) | MEDLINE | Netherlands | Qualitative | Veterinary students; Medical students | • Credible vs trustworthy source who knows the student well |
| • Expertise on subject as well as student’s progress | |||||
| • Relationship over time (length) | |||||
| Ramani, Post et al. (2017) | MEDLINE | USA | Qualitative | Internal medicine residents | • Faculty relationships impact the credibility of feedback |
| • Lack of clear expectations/goal discussions | |||||
| • Direct observation | |||||
| • “Culture of niceness” which lacked the constructive portion of the feedback content | |||||
| Telio et al. (2016) | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative | Psychiatry residents | • Trainee judgments of the supervisor’s ability as a clinician (targeted medical knowledge) |
| • Their investment in both the trainees’ identity, and their enthusiasm for teaching. | |||||
| • Perceived feelings of the supervisor towards the learner | |||||
| • Considered supervisor’s motivations in teaching | |||||
| • Engagement in teaching ➔ educational alliance | |||||
| • Lack of trainee interest in receiving feedback - Motivation | |||||
| • Knows about the learner’s personal identity | |||||
| • Learner defensiveness | |||||
| • Education alliance can prompt re-evaluation of FB that was initially met with skepticism overtime | |||||
| Watling et. al (2014) | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative |
Physicians; Medical students |
• Longitudinal relationship |
| • Sustained, frequent observation over time | |||||
| • Person has your best intentions at heart | |||||
| • Observing you for long enough | |||||
| • “Oh well, they don’t know me” | |||||
| • Own goals and their teacher were aligned in terms of task | |||||
| • Timeliness—immediacy and during task | |||||
| Manzone et al. (2014) | MEDLINE | Canada | Quantitative | Undergraduate medical students | • Ego-oriented numerical group found FB more credible than task-oriented numerical group |
| Watling et al. (2013) | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative |
Undergraduate music students; Medical students; Residents (from a range of specialties); Teacher’s college students |
• Feedback forms supervisors were required to use forced them to comment on aspects of learner performance about which they had insufficient information “obligated to say something when they have nothing to say” |
| • Feedback as a “formality”/mandatory | |||||
| • Feedback cultures shape credibility, i.e., credibility in medical context means clinical skills/expertise | |||||
| • No direct observation of performance decreased credibility ➔ substituting inference for observation | |||||
| Dijksterhuis et al. (2013) | PsychINFO | Netherlands | Qualitative |
Post-graduate trainees in obstetrics and gynecology; Supervisors in obstetrics and gynecology |
• Need for clear standards |
| • Credibility of FB content | |||||
| • Credibility of feedback giver | |||||
| • Direct observation present | |||||
| • The feedback relates to a representative encounter ➔ aligns with self-assessment, trainee must have engaged with task | |||||
| • Supervisor is a role model, well respected, enthusiastic about his chosen specialization, encouraging to trainees | |||||
| Murdoch-Eaton and Sargeant (2012) | MEDLINE | UK | Qualitative and quantitative | Undergraduate medical students | • Maturational differences |
| • Senior students acknowledged the validity of feedback from peers and self-evals. Students in earlier year groups showed a tendency to discount feedback given by anyone other than senior academics | |||||
| • Passive to active learning styles | |||||
| Watling et al. (2012) [10] | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative | Faculty members (within 5 years of initial appointment) | • Promotion focus rather than prevention focused (reframing of feedback overtime leads suspicious feedback to become more credible) |
| • Supervisor is respected by peers and learner | |||||
| Watling et al. (2012) [21] | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative | Faculty members (within 5 years of initial appointment) | • Credibility of a supervisor facilitates acceptance of feedback |
| • Values not in alignment with learner | |||||
| • Does not align with self-assessment | |||||
| • Learner does not see supervisor as a role model | |||||
| Watling et al. (2008) | MEDLINE | Canada | Qualitative | Residents (from a range of specialties) | • Direct observation |
| • longitudinal relationship | |||||
| • Feedback delivery in person | |||||
| • Specificity ➔ specific example can fail to reflect global performance | |||||
| • Trainees feedback receptivity (motivation/engagement) | |||||
| Stroud et al. (2018) | MEDLINE | Canada | Quantitative | Internal medicine residents | • Expertise/specialty congruency |
| • Gender of supervisor | |||||
| • Gender of trainee—women found feedback more credible overall | |||||
| • Trainee year | |||||
| • No differences in perception of credibility based on how high or low the score was | |||||
| Sargeant et al. (2011) | MEDLINE | UK, USA, Netherlands, and Belgium | Qualitative |
Undergraduate medical students; Post-graduate trainees (specialty not disclosed) |
• Checklist feedback makes it superficial |
| • Objective data lends credibility | |||||
| • Supervisors knowledge about their progress (investment/engagement) | |||||
| Bakke et al. (2020) | MEDLINE | USA | Qualitative | Second-year medical students | • Expertise |
| • Relationship➔ trust and respect | |||||
| • Interest in the individual | |||||
| • Empathetic | |||||
| • Iterative feedback culture | |||||
| • Direct observation over time | |||||
| • Knowledge of student progress | |||||
| Ramani, Konings et al. (2017) | MEDLINE | USA | Qualitative | Internal medicine residents | • Direct observation |
| • Relationship time | |||||
| • Trainee motivation/engagement | |||||
| • Feedback content less emotional and personal | |||||
| • Feedback-seeking attitude | |||||
| Eva et al. (2010) | MEDLINE | Netherlands, Belgium, UK, USA, Canada | Qualitative (data from this study taken from Sargeant (2010)) |
Undergraduate medical students; Post-graduate medical trainees (range of specialties); Midwifery students; Practicing physicians |
• Direct observation enhanced feedback |
| • Strong relationships between learner and teacher | |||||
| • Feedback valence ➔ positive feedback is more credible | |||||
| • Position of beneficence/non- maleficence | |||||
| • Interest in learner | |||||
| • Length/quality of relationship | |||||
| • Learner biased that negative feedback is due to external factors while positive feedback can be attributed to learner | |||||
| Sargeant et al. (2010) | MEDLINE | Netherlands, Belgium, UK, USA, Canada | Qualitative |
Undergraduate medical trainees; Post-graduate medical trainees (range of specialties); Physicians |
• Lack of direct observation |
| • Did not align with self-assessment | |||||
| • No clear standard | |||||
| • “another hoop to jump through” feedback being a chore | |||||
| Moroz et al. (2017) | PsychINFO | USA | Qualitative | Physical medicine and rehabilitation residents | • Motivation affects feedback credibility |
| • Source credibility ➔ positive, long-standing relationship | |||||
| • Culture of the workplace: where feedback has lower priority and is seen as “something to get done” | |||||
| McPhee et al. (2016) | PsychINFO | Australia | Phase 1 quantitative, phase 2 qualitative | Graduated nurses in transition year | • Rostering with many staff across many shifts ➔ learning culture |
| • Checklists devalue feedback | |||||
| • A meeting with the individual for discussion following | |||||
| Poulos and Mahony (2008) | ERIC | Australia | Qualitative | Allied health undergraduate students | • Supervisor biases—diminish credibility of feedback (lack of a clear standard—grades were higher when the students’ held the same viewpoints as the lecturer) |
| • Lecturer’s ability | |||||
| Bing-You and Patterson (1997) | EMBASE | USA | Qualitative | Internal medicine residents | • Not shouting/yelling ➔ intent |
| • Respect for the feedback source | |||||
| • Trust of source | |||||
| • Low level of knowledge or experience | |||||
| • Never observed the learner/did not pay attention | |||||
|
• Feedback given out of obligation is just checking boxes • Seems inattentive towards the learner | |||||
| • They seemed busy, in a hurry, or just going through the motions ➔ interest/culture | |||||
| • Self-assessment does not align with supervisors | |||||
| • Difficulty accepting in a group setting | |||||
| • If it feels like a personal attack/judgmental rather than a critique of performance ➔ intention | |||||
| Fu et al. (2019) | EMBASE | Taiwan | Qualitative | General medicine/internal medicine PGY-1 residents | • Motivation/feedback seeking behavior |
| • Engagement with initial task/importance placed on task | |||||
| • The value that participants placed on feedback—attitude | |||||
| • Initial goals discussion/guidance | |||||
| • Feedback is not specific ➔ “saying something when there’s nothing to say” | |||||
| • Culture of fast rotations and many residents | |||||
| • Timeliness in that delayed FB may call into question the accuracy of events/memory | |||||
| • Repetition of feedback exercise made feedback generic, and redundant |