Systematic review of feedback literacy instruments for health professions students.

Mohamad Nabil Mohd Noor, Sahar Fatima, Jessica Grace Cockburn, Muhammad Hibatullah Romli, Vinod Pallath, Wei-Han Hong, Jamuna Vadivelu, Chan Chong Foong
Author Information
  1. Mohamad Nabil Mohd Noor: Medical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  2. Sahar Fatima: Medical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  3. Jessica Grace Cockburn: Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
  4. Muhammad Hibatullah Romli: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
  5. Vinod Pallath: Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia.
  6. Wei-Han Hong: Medical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  7. Jamuna Vadivelu: Medical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  8. Chan Chong Foong: Medical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Abstract

Successfully managing and utilizing feedback is a critical skill for self-improvement. Properly identifying feedback literacy level is crucial to facilitate teachers and learners especially in clinical learning to plan for better learning experience. The present review aimed to gather and examine the existing definitions and metrics used to assess feedback literacy (or parts of its concepts) for health professions education. A systematic search was conducted on six databases, together with a manual search in January 2023. Quality of the included studies were appraised using the COSMIN Checklist. Information on the psychometric properties and clinical utility of the accepted instruments were extracted. A total 2226 records of studies were identified, and 11 articles included in the final analysis extracting 13 instruments. These instruments can be administered easily, and most are readily accessible. However, 'appreciating feedback' was overrepresented compared to the other three features of feedback literacy and none of the instruments had sufficient quality across all COSMIN validity rating sections. Further research studies should focus on developing and refining feedback literacy instruments that can be adapted to many contexts within health professions education. Future research should apply a rigorous methodology to produce a valid and reliable student feedback literacy instrument.

References

  1. Clin Anat. 2018 Jan;31(1):122-133 [PMID: 28612403]
  2. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82 [PMID: 23092060]
  3. J Educ Health Promot. 2019 Dec 31;8:256 [PMID: 32002428]
  4. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Nov 25;17(1):229 [PMID: 29178924]
  5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 03;14:73 [PMID: 24893958]
  6. Med Teach. 2017 Dec;39(12):1227-1237 [PMID: 28664760]
  7. J Pastoral Care Counsel. 2015 Mar;69(1):19-30 [PMID: 26162203]
  8. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2021 Jan-Mar;33(1):82-88 [PMID: 33774960]
  9. Teach Learn Med. 2018 Apr-Jun;30(2):162-172 [PMID: 29240456]
  10. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638-45 [PMID: 20662574]
  11. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):904-10 [PMID: 22022901]
  12. BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 21;10(6):e037887 [PMID: 32565479]
  13. Cureus. 2023 May 8;15(5):e38722 [PMID: 37292525]
  14. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):115-22 [PMID: 25893932]
  15. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jun 15;18(1):139 [PMID: 29907112]
  16. Geriatr Nurs. 2022 May-Jun;45:29-38 [PMID: 35299030]
  17. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Aug 13;19(1):308 [PMID: 31409410]
  18. J Surg Educ. 2018 Mar - Apr;75(2):471-480 [PMID: 28843958]
  19. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 4;13(6):e0198009 [PMID: 29864130]
  20. Occup Ther Int. 2020 Jul 17;2020:2490519 [PMID: 32821250]
  21. Acad Med. 2015 Aug;90(8):1067-76 [PMID: 26107881]
  22. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Dec 15;21(1):618 [PMID: 34911503]
  23. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Dec 10;16(12):e251 [PMID: 25498126]
  24. Med Educ. 2012 Oct;46(10):943-52 [PMID: 22989128]
  25. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Jan 3;22(1):13 [PMID: 34980083]
  26. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Nov 25;20(1):466 [PMID: 33238974]
  27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42 [PMID: 17161752]
  28. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Oct;25(4):989-1002 [PMID: 31768787]
  29. Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906 [PMID: 33789826]
  30. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Sep 10;21(1):486 [PMID: 34503487]
  31. Hum Resour Health. 2012 Nov 16;10:43 [PMID: 23157696]
  32. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170 [PMID: 29550964]
  33. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct 19;18(1):109 [PMID: 30340533]
  34. Med Teach. 2013 Nov;35(11):e1573-83 [PMID: 23808875]
  35. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Mar;23(1):159-186 [PMID: 28667549]
  36. J Invest Dermatol. 2016 Nov;136(11):e109-e114 [PMID: 27772550]
  37. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179 [PMID: 29260445]
  38. West J Emerg Med. 2023 May 05;24(3):479-494 [PMID: 37278777]
  39. Med Teach. 2014 Apr;36 Suppl 1:S17-23 [PMID: 24617779]
  40. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157 [PMID: 29435801]
  41. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Mar;25(1):55-74 [PMID: 31375942]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0feedbackliteracyinstrumentshealthprofessionsstudiesclinicallearningrevieweducationsearchincludedCOSMINcanresearchSuccessfullymanagingutilizingcriticalskillself-improvementProperlyidentifyinglevelcrucialfacilitateteacherslearnersespeciallyplanbetterexperiencepresentaimedgatherexamineexistingdefinitionsmetricsusedassesspartsconceptssystematicconductedsixdatabasestogethermanualJanuary2023QualityappraisedusingChecklistInformationpsychometricpropertiesutilityacceptedextractedtotal2226recordsidentified11articlesfinalanalysisextracting13administeredeasilyreadilyaccessibleHowever'appreciatingfeedback'overrepresentedcomparedthreefeaturesnonesufficientqualityacrossvalidityratingsectionsfocusdevelopingrefiningadaptedmanycontextswithinFutureapplyrigorousmethodologyproducevalidreliablestudentinstrumentSystematicstudents

Similar Articles

Cited By