Available assessment tools for evaluating feedback quality: a scoping review oriented to education in digital media

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Purpose In recent years, the use of digital platforms for surgical and medical training has increased. Quality feedback is essential when using these methodologies, as it serves as the primary form of interaction between trainers and students. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate feedback using valid and reliable instruments. This scoping review aims to identify assessment tools available in the literature for evaluating feedback in medical education. Materials A scoping review was conducted between April and May 2022, using the databases Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library. No publication date limits were used, and English and Spanish were the included languages. The search was supported by the State-of-the-Art-through-Systematic-Review (StArt) software. Two reviewers selected articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Inclusion criteria were tools or instruments in medical education related to feedback, while tools unrelated to feedback assessment or inaccessibility were excluded. Items were organized to have an overview of the findings. Results From the initial 16,229 articles, 26 feedback quality assessment instruments were found, including the CME Faculty Assessment Instrument, DOCS-FBS, EFFECT instrument, EFFECT-S, EFeCT, Feedback Questionnaire, FEEDME-Feedback culture, FEEDME-Feedback provider, PACT, Quality of the feedback perceived by students, SETQ for Surgical Specialties, StudentPEP project evaluation questionnaire, IQ Instrument, and 13 others without specific names. None was exclusively developed for digital feedback. Conclusion Limited evidence exists on feedback evaluation tools, especially in digital contexts. The identified instruments highlight opportunities for further research and development of feedback tools appropriate for remote and asynchronous surgical training.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.