Postgraduate students' perceptions of what makes for effective assessment feedback: a case study of a clinical masters course

he purpose of this study was to examine postgraduate students’ perceptions of assessment feedback. Using the Critical Incident Technique, students enrolled on a taught clinical course were asked for their perceptions of effective and ineffective examples of assessment feedback. The data were analysed using thematic analysis and nine themes emerged that capture perceptions associated with feedback content and feedback process. Students perceived effective feedback if it was specific and clear, using positive tone of language. They expressed a preference for feedback that is delivered in a standardised format, reflecting the grades given, individualised, and when the marking criteria is explicit and enables dialogue with the marker. Students perceived feedback to be ineffective when it focused on grammatical errors rather than content, when it was provided by anonymous graders and if it was too personal. Timeliness of feedback was also important to participants. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are highlighted in this paper

Development of core outcome sets in hidradenitis suppurativa:a systematic review of outcome measure instruments to inform the process

Background The recent hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) Cochrane review identified outcome measure heterogeneity as an important issue to address when designing future HS trials. Objectives To follow the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap, by performing a systematic review of HS outcome measure instruments to inform the development of a HS core outcome set. Methods We performed a systematic review to identify validation evidence for outcome measure instruments used in HS randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and assessed the methodological quality of all HS outcome measure validity studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results The 12 RCTs included in the HS Cochrane review utilised a total of 30 outcome measure instruments, including 16 physician reported instruments, 11 patient reported instruments and three composite measures containing elements of both. Twenty-seven (90%) of the instruments lacked any validation data. Two further instruments have been developed and partially validated recently. Of the seven studies meeting our systematic review inclusion criteria, six were of ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ methodological quality, in part because most of the studies were not primarily designed for instrument validation. The HiSCR instrument is supported by good quality validation data but there are gaps including assessment of internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and minimal clinically important difference, and convergent validity fell below the acceptable range for some comparisons. Conclusions Multiple, usually unvalidated outcome measure instruments have been used in HS RCTs. Where validation evidence is available there are issues of low methodological quality or incomplete validity assessment and so no instruments can be fully recommended currently

Postgraduate students’ perceptions of what makes for effective assessment feedback: a case study of a clinical masters course

he purpose of this study was to examine postgraduate students’ perceptions of assessment feedback. Using the Critical Incident Technique, students enrolled on a taught clinical course were asked for their perceptions of effective and ineffective examples of assessment feedback. The data were analysed using thematic analysis and nine themes emerged that capture perceptions associated with feedback content and feedback process. Students perceived effective feedback if it was specific and clear, using positive tone of language. They expressed a preference for feedback that is delivered in a standardised format, reflecting the grades given, individualised, and when the marking criteria is explicit and enables dialogue with the marker. Students perceived feedback to be ineffective when it focused on grammatical errors rather than content, when it was provided by anonymous graders and if it was too personal. Timeliness of feedback was also important to participants. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are highlighted in this paper