ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
Multisource feedback in residency training: A quantitative study to investigate the feedback conversation.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Biggs bang" - when alignment truly ignites.GMS journal for medical education · 2025Article
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: Multisource Feedback (MSF) is one form of assessment in medical training. It provides individual feedback based on multiple ratings, which can then be used to develop learning goals during a feedback conversation between supervisor and resident. We conducted this study to investigate how the resident and supervisor set the learning goals and what the learning goals refer to. Methods: The study comprised 75 sets of MSF, each consisting of 12-15 external ratings per resident and one self-rating per resident. Data included 1015 external ratings and 75 self-ratings. As ten sets missed learning goals, only 65 sets of MSF could be analysed. Data comprised written MSF feedback, including scale-based ratings and narrative comments, structured minutes from the feedback conversations and the resulting learning goals, which were sorted into themes. We used multiple linear regressions to determine the associations between feedback data, conversation topics and learning goals. Results: Topics were more likely to be discussed as strengths during the feedback conversation if scale-based ratings were high and there were many favourable comments on an item. Topics were more likely to be discussed as areas for improvement if the number of unfavourable comments was high. Topics with many (favourable and unfavourable) comments and topics discussed as an area for improvement were more likely to result in learning goals. We found a number of learning goals beyond the competences on the MSF-questionnaire, that can be understood as connected to Professional Identity Formation. Conclusion: As the feedback and learning goals clearly exceeded the expected competences from the MSF questionnaire, we see the need for addressing these broader topics of residents' development. Hence, we encourage supervisors and residents to explicitly include Professional Identity Formation topics such as career plans, engagement in research or personal attitudes into regular assessments and feedback conversations. Thus, MSF might be a fitting tool to support professional identity development.
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.