Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study

Objectives To examine a narrative multisource feedback (MSF) instrument concerning feasibility, quality of narrative comments, perceptions of users (face validity), consequential validity, discriminating capacity and number of assessors needed.Design Qualitative text analysis supplemented by quantit...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maurice A Lembeck, Jette Led Sørensen, Hanne Pedersen, Ellen Astrid Holm, Shaymaa Jaafar Lafta Al-Bayati, Toke Seierøe Barfod, Emilie Ramberg, Åse Kathrine Klemmensen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2021-07-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/7/e047019.full
id doaj-638257a33e204af6acc473d7ee2d3d2f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-638257a33e204af6acc473d7ee2d3d2f2021-08-07T16:34:01ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552021-07-0111710.1136/bmjopen-2020-047019Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method studyMaurice A Lembeck0Jette Led Sørensen1Hanne Pedersen2Ellen Astrid Holm3Shaymaa Jaafar Lafta Al-Bayati4Toke Seierøe Barfod5Emilie Ramberg6Åse Kathrine Klemmensen7Department of Internal Medicine, Nykobing F Sygehus, Nykobing Falster, DenmarkJuliane Marie Centre for Children, Women and Reproduction Section 4074, Rigshospitalet, Kobenhavn, DenmarkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Glostrup, Rigshospitalet, Kobenhavn, DenmarkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Zealand University Hospital Koge, Koge, DenmarkDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Zealand University Hospital Roskilde, Roskilde, DenmarkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Zealand University Hospital Roskilde, Roskilde, DenmarkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Nykobing F Sygehus, Nykobing Falster, DenmarkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, Kobenhavn, DenmarkObjectives To examine a narrative multisource feedback (MSF) instrument concerning feasibility, quality of narrative comments, perceptions of users (face validity), consequential validity, discriminating capacity and number of assessors needed.Design Qualitative text analysis supplemented by quantitative descriptive analysis.Setting Internal Medicine Departments in Zealand, Denmark.Participants 48 postgraduate trainees in internal medicine specialties, 1 clinical supervisor for each trainee and 376 feedback givers (respondents).Intervention This study examines the use of an electronic, purely narrative MSF instrument. After the MSF process, the trainee and the supervisor answered a postquestionnaire concerning their perception of the process. The authors coded the comments in the MSF reports for valence (positive or negative), specificity, relation to behaviour and whether the comment suggested a strategy for improvement. Four of the authors independently classified the MSF reports as either ‘no reasons for concern’ or ‘possibly some concern’, thereby examining discriminating capacity. Through iterative readings, the authors furthermore tried to identify how many respondents were needed in order to get a reliable impression of a trainee.Results Out of all comments coded for valence (n=1935), 89% were positive and 11% negative. Out of all coded comments (n=4684), 3.8% were suggesting ways to improve. 92% of trainees and supervisors preferred a narrative MSF to a numerical MSF, and 82% of the trainees discovered performance in need of development, but only 53% had made a specific plan for development. Kappa coefficients for inter-rater correlations between four authors were 0.7–1. There was a significant association (p<0.001) between the number of negative comments and the qualitative judgement by the four authors. It was not possible to define a specific number of respondents needed.Conclusions A purely narrative MSF contributes with educational value and experienced supervisors can discriminate between trainees’ performances based on the MSF reports.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/7/e047019.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Maurice A Lembeck
Jette Led Sørensen
Hanne Pedersen
Ellen Astrid Holm
Shaymaa Jaafar Lafta Al-Bayati
Toke Seierøe Barfod
Emilie Ramberg
Åse Kathrine Klemmensen
spellingShingle Maurice A Lembeck
Jette Led Sørensen
Hanne Pedersen
Ellen Astrid Holm
Shaymaa Jaafar Lafta Al-Bayati
Toke Seierøe Barfod
Emilie Ramberg
Åse Kathrine Klemmensen
Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
BMJ Open
author_facet Maurice A Lembeck
Jette Led Sørensen
Hanne Pedersen
Ellen Astrid Holm
Shaymaa Jaafar Lafta Al-Bayati
Toke Seierøe Barfod
Emilie Ramberg
Åse Kathrine Klemmensen
author_sort Maurice A Lembeck
title Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
title_short Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
title_full Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
title_fullStr Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
title_sort feasibility, quality and validity of narrative multisource feedback in postgraduate training: a mixed-method study
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Open
issn 2044-6055
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Objectives To examine a narrative multisource feedback (MSF) instrument concerning feasibility, quality of narrative comments, perceptions of users (face validity), consequential validity, discriminating capacity and number of assessors needed.Design Qualitative text analysis supplemented by quantitative descriptive analysis.Setting Internal Medicine Departments in Zealand, Denmark.Participants 48 postgraduate trainees in internal medicine specialties, 1 clinical supervisor for each trainee and 376 feedback givers (respondents).Intervention This study examines the use of an electronic, purely narrative MSF instrument. After the MSF process, the trainee and the supervisor answered a postquestionnaire concerning their perception of the process. The authors coded the comments in the MSF reports for valence (positive or negative), specificity, relation to behaviour and whether the comment suggested a strategy for improvement. Four of the authors independently classified the MSF reports as either ‘no reasons for concern’ or ‘possibly some concern’, thereby examining discriminating capacity. Through iterative readings, the authors furthermore tried to identify how many respondents were needed in order to get a reliable impression of a trainee.Results Out of all comments coded for valence (n=1935), 89% were positive and 11% negative. Out of all coded comments (n=4684), 3.8% were suggesting ways to improve. 92% of trainees and supervisors preferred a narrative MSF to a numerical MSF, and 82% of the trainees discovered performance in need of development, but only 53% had made a specific plan for development. Kappa coefficients for inter-rater correlations between four authors were 0.7–1. There was a significant association (p<0.001) between the number of negative comments and the qualitative judgement by the four authors. It was not possible to define a specific number of respondents needed.Conclusions A purely narrative MSF contributes with educational value and experienced supervisors can discriminate between trainees’ performances based on the MSF reports.
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/7/e047019.full
work_keys_str_mv AT mauricealembeck feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT jetteledsørensen feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT hannepedersen feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT ellenastridholm feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT shaymaajaafarlaftaalbayati feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT tokeseierøebarfod feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT emilieramberg feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
AT asekathrineklemmensen feasibilityqualityandvalidityofnarrativemultisourcefeedbackinpostgraduatetrainingamixedmethodstudy
_version_ 1721216945981751296