PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12098410

Developing the teaching instinct, 1: feedback.

Abstract

The first in a new series of short educational programmes covering a range of important topics in medical education. Each programme defines the topic, provides some background information, presents some practical tips, gives some theoretical underpinning where relevant, provides some further reading and suggests an activity which can be carried out independently or with colleagues. The series has been designed in collaboration with NHS Education for Scotland as an aid to all engaged as trainers or teachers in the healthcare professions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E A Hesketh, J M Laidlaw. 2002. Developing the teaching instinct, 1: feedback.. https://doi.org/10.1080/014215902201409911

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗