Table 1.
Objective analysis of the feedback quality in 2020 (online feedback given by near peer students) compared to 2013 (face to face feedback given by experienced clinical teachers)
| Objective analysis of the feedback quality | Senior students Online feedback | Experienced tutors Face to face feedback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 N = 106 | 2013 N = 37 | ||
| Mean (SD) Likert scale 1–5 | Mean (SD) Likert scale 1–5 | p valuea | |
| The tutor explored students’ learning needs | 3.42 (0.76) | 2.14 (1.73) | < 0.0001 |
| The tutor stimulated students’ self-assessment | 3.27 (0.97) | 1.73 (1.50) | < 0.0001 |
| The feedback was descriptive | 3.41 (0.69) | 3.68 (1.00) | 0.096 |
| The feedback was subjective | 3.95 (1.12) | 2.49 (2.00) | 0.0001 |
| The feedback was balanced (between both the positive and constructive feedback) | 3.34 (1.02) | 3.57 (1.26) | 0.328 |
| The supervisor took into account the student’ s self-assessment | 3.71 (0.87) | 2.00 (1.99) | < 0.0001 |
| The tutor stimulated students to participate to the problem-solving process | 3.07 (0.42) | 2.70 (1.41) | 0.007 |
| The tutor used role playing or hands on | 1.39 (0.84) | 0.95 (1.49) | < 0.0001 |
| The tutor checked students’ understanding | 3.39 (1.13) | 2.09 (1.72) | < 0.0001 |
| Transversal dimensions | |||
| Empathy | 5.59 (0.51) | 3.81 (1.05) | < 0.0001 |
| Pedagogical effectiveness | 3.81 (0.69) | 2.78 (1.57) | 0.0002 |
| Structure of the feed-back | 3.63 (0.48) | 2.49 (1.33) | < 0.0001 |
| Verbal interaction | 3.15 (0.36) | 3.27 (0.96) | 0.6629 |
| Global evaluation (sum of the scores of items) | 3.73 (0.38) | 2.93 (1.23) | 0.0002 |
aWilcoxon rank sum test