z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Resident Perceptions of Giving and Receiving Peer-to-Peer Feedback
Author(s) -
Maria Syl D. de la Cruz,
Michael T. Kopec,
Leslie A. Wimsatt
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of graduate medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.541
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 1949-8349
pISSN - 1949-8357
DOI - 10.4300/jgme-d-14-00388.1
Subject(s) - peer feedback , immediacy , peer review , perception , medical education , focus group , standardization , process (computing) , psychology , dimension (graph theory) , medicine , applied psychology , computer science , philosophy , epistemology , marketing , neuroscience , political science , law , business , operating system , mathematics , pure mathematics
Background Peer feedback is increasingly being used by residency programs to provide an added dimension to the assessment process. Studies show that peer feedback is useful, uniquely informative, and reliable compared to other types of assessments. Potential barriers to implementation include insufficient training/preparation, negative consequences for working relationships, and a perceived lack of benefit. Objective We explored the perceptions of residents involved in peer-to-peer feedback, focusing on factors that influence accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information. Methods Family medicine residents at the University of Michigan who were piloting an online peer assessment tool completed a brief survey to offer researchers insight into the peer feedback process. Focus groups were conducted to explore residents' perceptions that are most likely to affect giving and receiving peer feedback. Results Survey responses were provided by 28 of 30 residents (93%). Responses showed that peer feedback provided useful (89%, 25 of 28) and unique (89%, 24 of 27) information, yet only 59% (16 of 27) reported that it benefited their training. Focus group participants included 21 of 29 eligible residents (72%). Approaches to improve residents' ability to give and accept feedback included preparatory training, clearly defined goals, standardization, fewer and more qualitatively oriented encounters, 1-on-1 delivery, immediacy of timing, and cultivation of a feedback culture. Conclusions Residents perceived feedback as important and offered actionable suggestions to enhance accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information shared. The findings can be used to inform residency programs that are interested in creating a meaningful peer feedback process.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom