ArticleMedical science educator2022
Rapid Feedback: Assessing Pre-clinical Teaching in the Era of Online Learning.
Article in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical schools vary in their approach to providing feedback to faculty. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of rapid student feedback in a course utilizing novel virtual learning methods. Methods: Second-year medical students were supplied with an optional, short questionnaire at the end of each class session and asked to provide feedback within 48 h. At the close of each survey, results were emailed to faculty. After the course, students and faculty were asked to rate the effectiveness of this method. This study did not affect administration of the usual end-of-course summative evaluations. Results: Ninety-one percent of students who participated noted increased engagement in the feedback process, but only 18% on average chose to participate. Faculty rated rapid feedback as more actionable than summative feedback (67%), 50% rated it as more specific, and 42% rated it as more helpful. Some wrote that comments were too granular, and others noted a negative personal emotional response. Conclusion: Rapid feedback engaged students, provided actionable feedback, and increased communication between students and instructors, suggesting that this approach added value. Care must be taken to reduce the student burden and support relational aspects of the process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.