ArticleAEM education and training2022
Differences in faculty feedback for high, expected, and below-expected clinically performing emergency medicine residents.
Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students' Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- EM Download: Giving Feedback in the Emergency Department.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Trends in nursing feedback for emergency medicine residents: A mixed-methods survey analysis of national practices.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- Differences in faculty feedback for high, expected, and below-expected clinically performing emergency medicine residents.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: A lifelong pursuit such as medicine is frequently paired with a framework of "deliberate practice" for improvement. It is unclear whether the quality of feedback varies across different learner levels. Our study aims to assess whether a difference exists in the quality of feedback delivered to high-, expected-, and below-expected performer emergency medicine (EM) residents based on their attending-identified performance level. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of written EM resident feedback collected between November 2018 and March 2021. Clinical performance level was subjectively determined by attending faculty in their feedback. Feedback was coded on a scale from 0-5 based on the presence (1) or absence (0) of the items modified from the Ende's SMART criteria: Specific (S), Measurable (M), Achievable (A), Relevant (R), and Time-bound (T). The primary outcome was any total modified SMART criteria score difference concerning performance level using logistic regression with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE). Secondary outcomes were differences for individual criteria. Results: We analyzed 1284 evaluations (311 high performers, 930 expected performers, and 43 below-expected performers) of 94 unique residents from 66 different evaluators. Mean total modified SMART scores were significantly higher in high and below-expected performers than those designated as expected performers by faculty evaluators. Achievable and Relevant written feedback was provided to high performers in a significantly larger proportion than expected and below-expected performers. Only 278 out of 1284 evaluations met criteria for Specific. Conclusions: Mean total modified SMART feedback scores were significantly greater in high performers and below-expected performers when compared to expected performers. Achievable and Relevant feedback was provided in greater proportions to high performer residents compared to expected and below-expected performers. These findings are a challenge to academic faculty to engage in quality feedback delivery for residents at all performance levels.
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.