Difficulty giving feedback on underperformance undermines the educational value of multi-source feedback

References

• Archer JC, McAvoy P. Factors that might undermine the validity of patient and multi-source feedback. Med Educ 2011; 45: 886–893
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer JC, Norcini J, Davies HA. Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. BMJ 2005; 330: 1251–1254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock AD, Hassell A, Markham WA, Wall DW, Whitehouse AB. How ratings vary by staff group in multi-source feedback assessment of junior doctors. Med Educ 2009; 43: 516–520
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Social research methods3rd. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008
   Google Scholar
• Campbell JL, Richards SH, Dickens A, Greco M, Narayanan A, Brearley S. Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: An evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: 187–193
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ 2008; 337: 1292–1294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castanelli D, Kitto S. Perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of staff anaesthetists related to multi-source feedback used for their performance appraisal. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107(3)372–377
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cushing A, Abbott S, Lothian D, Hall A, Westwood OM. Peer feedback as an aid to learning - what do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now! Med Teach 2011; 33(2)e105–112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies H, Archer J, Bateman A, Dewer S, Crossley J, Grant J, Southgate L. Specialty-specific multi-source feedback: Assuring validity, informing training. Med Educ 2008; 42: 1014–1020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, (editors). 2005. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Evans RG, Edwards A, Evans S, Elwyn B, Elwyn G. Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: A systematic review of instruments and feedback methods. Fam Pract 2007; 24(2)117–127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garton S, Copland F. ‘I like this interview: I get cakes and cats!’: The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qual Res 2010; 10(5): 533–551
   Google Scholar
• General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. General Medical Council, London 2006
   Google Scholar
• General Medical Council. Tomorrow's Doctors. General Medical Council, London 2009
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs GR. Online QDA: Learning Qualitative Data Analysis on the Web [Online]. University of Huddersfield., Huddersfield 2009, [Accessed 19 October 2011.] Available from http://www.onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Hays RB, Davies HA, Beard JD, Caldon LJ, Farmer EA, Finucane PM, McCrorie P, Newble DI, Schuwirth LW, Sibbald GR, et al. Selecting performance assessment methods for experienced physicians. Med Educ 2002; 36: 910–917
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvine D. A short history of the General Medical Council. Med Educ 2006; 40: 202–211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, C Cassell, G Symon. Sage, London 2004; 256–270
   Google Scholar
• Kuper A, Hodges B. Medical education in its societal context. 2011. Medical education: Theory and practice, T Dornan, K Mann, A Scherpbier, JA Spencer. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 2011
   Google Scholar
• Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ 2008; 337: 459–461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackillop L, Parker-Swift J, Crossley J. Getting the questions right: Non-compound questions are more reliable than compound questions on matched multi-source feedback instruments. Med Educ 2011; 45: 843–848
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009; 14(4)595–621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martimianakis MA, Maniate JM, Hodges BD. Sociological interpretations of professionalism. Med Educ 2009; 43: 829–837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLellan H, Bateman H, Bailey P. The place of 360 degree appraisal within a team approach to professional development. J Interprof Care 2005; 19(2)137–148
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mercer J. The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Rev Educ 2007; 33(1)1–17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monrouxe LV, Rees CE, Hu W. Differences in medical students’ explicit discourses of professionalism: Acting, representing, becoming. Med Educ 2011; 45: 585–602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overeem K, Lombarts MJ, Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Grol RP, Wollersheim HC. Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: A plea for narrative comments and coworkers' perspectives. Med Teach 2010; 32(2)141–147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overeem K, Wollersheim H, Driessen E, Lombarts K, van de Ven G, Grol R, Arah O. Doctors’ perceptions of why 360-degree feedback does (not) work: A qualitative study. Med Educ 2009; 43: 874–882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overeem K, Wollersheimh HC, Arah OA, Cruijsberg JK, Grol RP, Lombarts KM. Factors predicting doctors’ reporting of performance change in response to multisource feedback. BMC Med Educ 2012; 12: 52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patel JP, Sharma A, West D, Bates IP, Davies JG, Abdel-Tawab R. An evaluation of using multi-source feedback (MSF) among junior hospital pharmacists. Int J Pharm Prac 2011; 19(4)276–280
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods3rd. Sage, London 2002
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993; 269(13)1655–1660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roulston K, deMarrais K, Lewis J. Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qual Inq ▪; 9(4)643–668
   Google Scholar
• Saedon H, Salleh S, Balakrishnan A, Imray CH, Saedon M. The role of feedback in improving the effectiveness of workplace based assessments: A systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2012; 12: 25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. Challenges in multisource feedback: Intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ 2007; 41: 583–591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma N, Cui Y, Leighton JP, White JS. Team-based assessment of medical students in a clinical clerkship is feasible and acceptable. Med Teach 2012; 34: 555–561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor J. The intimate insider: Negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qual Res 2011; 11(1)3–22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trowler P, Researching your own institution, British Educational Research Association on-line resource. [Accessed 7 September 2012] Available from http://www.bera.ac.uk/resources/researching-your-own-institution-higher-education
   Google Scholar
• Tunbridge M, Dickinson D, Swan P. Outcomes of assessments of registrars in the medical specialties. Clin Med 2004; 4(1)66–68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilkinson JR, Crossley JGM, Wragg A, Mills P, Cowan G, Wade W. Implementing workplace-based assessment across the medical specialties in the United Kingdom. Med Educ 2008; 42: 364–373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar