TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of the Feedback Quality Instrument
T2 - a guide for health professional educators in fostering learner-centred discussions
AU - Johnson, Christina E.
AU - Keating, Jennifer L.
AU - Leech, Michelle
AU - Congdon, Peter
AU - Kent, Fiona
AU - Farlie, Melanie K.
AU - Molloy, Elizabeth K.
N1 - Funding Information:
We wish to thank the clinicians and students who volunteered to video their feedback conversations, for taking this professional risk and partnering with us to advance our knowledge about what quality feedback discussions could look like. We wish to thank Professor David Boud, Director, Centre for Research in Assessment and Alfred Deakin Professor, Deakin University; and Professor Debra Nestel, Professor of Simulation Education in Healthcare, Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash University for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the instrument and this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: Face-to-face feedback plays an important role in health professionals’ workplace learning. The literature describes guiding principles regarding effective feedback but it is not clear how to enact these. We aimed to create a Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI), underpinned by a social constructivist perspective, to assist educators in collaborating with learners to support learner-centred feedback interactions. In earlier research, we developed a set of observable educator behaviours designed to promote beneficial learner outcomes, supported by published research and expert consensus. This research focused on analysing and refining this provisional instrument, to create the FQI ready-to-use. Methods: We collected videos of authentic face-to-face feedback discussions, involving educators (senior clinicians) and learners (clinicians or students), during routine clinical practice across a major metropolitan hospital network. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the video data were used to refine the provisional instrument. Raters administered the provisional instrument to systematically analyse educators’ feedback practice seen in the videos. This enabled usability testing and resulted in ratings data for psychometric analysis involving multifaceted Rasch model analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Parallel qualitative research of the video transcripts focused on two under-researched areas, psychological safety and evaluative judgement, to provide practical insights for item refinement. The provisional instrument was revised, using an iterative process, incorporating findings from usability testing, psychometric testing and parallel qualitative research and foundational research. Results: Thirty-six videos involved diverse health professionals across medicine, nursing and physiotherapy. Administering the provisional instrument generated 174 data sets. Following refinements, the FQI contained 25 items, clustered into five domains characterising core concepts underpinning quality feedback: set the scene, analyse performance, plan improvements, foster learner agency, and foster psychological safety. Conclusions: The FQI describes practical, empirically-informed ways for educators to foster quality, learner-centred feedback discussions. The explicit descriptions offer guidance for educators and provide a foundation for the systematic analysis of the influence of specific educator behaviours on learner outcomes.
AB - Background: Face-to-face feedback plays an important role in health professionals’ workplace learning. The literature describes guiding principles regarding effective feedback but it is not clear how to enact these. We aimed to create a Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI), underpinned by a social constructivist perspective, to assist educators in collaborating with learners to support learner-centred feedback interactions. In earlier research, we developed a set of observable educator behaviours designed to promote beneficial learner outcomes, supported by published research and expert consensus. This research focused on analysing and refining this provisional instrument, to create the FQI ready-to-use. Methods: We collected videos of authentic face-to-face feedback discussions, involving educators (senior clinicians) and learners (clinicians or students), during routine clinical practice across a major metropolitan hospital network. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the video data were used to refine the provisional instrument. Raters administered the provisional instrument to systematically analyse educators’ feedback practice seen in the videos. This enabled usability testing and resulted in ratings data for psychometric analysis involving multifaceted Rasch model analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Parallel qualitative research of the video transcripts focused on two under-researched areas, psychological safety and evaluative judgement, to provide practical insights for item refinement. The provisional instrument was revised, using an iterative process, incorporating findings from usability testing, psychometric testing and parallel qualitative research and foundational research. Results: Thirty-six videos involved diverse health professionals across medicine, nursing and physiotherapy. Administering the provisional instrument generated 174 data sets. Following refinements, the FQI contained 25 items, clustered into five domains characterising core concepts underpinning quality feedback: set the scene, analyse performance, plan improvements, foster learner agency, and foster psychological safety. Conclusions: The FQI describes practical, empirically-informed ways for educators to foster quality, learner-centred feedback discussions. The explicit descriptions offer guidance for educators and provide a foundation for the systematic analysis of the influence of specific educator behaviours on learner outcomes.
KW - Effective feedback
KW - Factor analysis
KW - Feedback
KW - Feedback instrument
KW - Health professional education
KW - Instrument development
KW - MFRM
KW - Professional development
KW - Psychometric evaluation
KW - Scale development
KW - Workplace learning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110439404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12909-021-02722-8
DO - 10.1186/s12909-021-02722-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 34253221
AN - SCOPUS:85110439404
SN - 1472-6920
VL - 21
JO - BMC Medical Education
JF - BMC Medical Education
IS - 1
M1 - 382
ER -