Feedback providers’ credibility impacts students’ satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance

References

• Albright MD, Levy PE. 1995. The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:577–600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alder GS, Ambrose ML. 2005. An examination of the effect of computerized performance, monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance and satisfaction. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 97:161–177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronson E, Turner JA, Carlsmith JM. 1963. Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:31–36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagai A, Thavendiranathan P, Detsky AS. 2006. Does this patient have hearing impairment? JAMA 295(4):416–428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bannister BD. 1986. Performance outcome feedback and attributional feedback: Interactive effects on recipient responses. J Appl Psych 71:203–210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bing-You RG, Paterson J, Levine MA. 1997. Feedback falling on deaf ears: Resident’s receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Med Teach 19:40–44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom AJ, Hautaluoma JE. 1987. Effects of message valence communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. J Soc Psychol 127:329–338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boatman DF, Miglioretti DL, Eberwein C, Alidoost M, Reich SG. 2007. How accurate are bedside hearing tests? Neurology 68:1311–1314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bochner S, Insko CA. 1966. Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 4:614–621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers
   Google Scholar
• Downing SM. 2004. Reliability: On the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 38:1006–1012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ear, Nose & Throat Examination – Medi-Vision Films 12. 2010. [Accessed 5 January 2013] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsS7d6_k1F8
   Google Scholar
• Fedor DB, Eder RW, Buckley RM. 1989. The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 44:369–414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn AN, Paul Schrodt P, Witt PL, Elledge N, Jernberg KA, Larson LM. 2009. A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Commun Educ 60(1):75–94
   Google Scholar
• Giffin K. 1967. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychol Bull 68:104–120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halperin K, Snyder CR, Shenkel RJ, Houston BK. 1976. Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback. J Appl Psych 61:85–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley AE. 1997. The effects of self-esteem and source credibility on self-denying prophecies. J Psychol 131:581–594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor SM. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psych 64:349–371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. 2006. The four levels: An overview. In: Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD, editors. Evaluating training programs. The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler Publishers. pp 21–65
   Google Scholar
• LaPlante D, Ambady N. 2002. Saying it like it isn’t: Mixed messages from men and women in the workplace. J Appl Psychol 32:2435–2457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HE, Park HS, Lee TS, Lee DW. 2007. Relationship between LMX and subordinates’ feedback-seeking behaviors. Soc Behav Pers 35:659–674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung K, Su S, Morris MW. 2001. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Hum Relat 54:1155–1187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. 2001. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdoch-Eaton D, Sargeant S. 2012. Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students’ perceptions about feedback. Med Educ 46:711–721
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orpen C, King G. 1989. Effects of superiors’ feedback, credibility, and expertise on subordinates’ reactions: An experimental study. Psychol Rep 64:645–646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, Farh JL. 1989. Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 44:45–67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan C. 2004. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J Appl Psychol 34:243–281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberson QM, Stewart MM. 2006. Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes. Br J Psychol 97:281–298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant J, MacLeod T, Sinclair D, Power M. 2011. How do physicians assess their family physician colleagues’ performance? Creating a rubric to inform assessment and feedback. J Contin Educ Health 31(2):87–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant J, Mann K, Ferrier S. 2005. Exploring family physicians’ reactions to multisource feedback: Perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 39:497–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. 2007. Challenges in multisource feedback: Intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ 41:583–591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon GB, DiMarco AM, Ohlson CJ, Reece SD. 1998. Expectation and coaching experience: Is more better? J Sport Behav 21:444–456
   Google Scholar
• Steelman LA, Rutkowsky KA. 2004. Moderators of employee reaction to negative feedback. J Manage Psychol 19:6–18
   Google Scholar
• Stevens J. 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
   Google Scholar
• Turner NB, van de Leemput AJ, Draaisma JMT, Oosterveld P, ten Cate TJ. 2008. Validity of the visual analogue scale as an instrument to assess self-efficacy in resuscitation skills. Med Educ 42:503–511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate ThJ. 2008. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ 42:189–197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vancouver JB, Morrison EW. 1995. Feedback inquiry: The effect of source attributes and individual differences. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62:276–285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. 2006. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 28:117–128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CPM, Lingard L. 2012a. Learning from clinical work: The roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Med Educ 46:192–200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CPM, Vanstone M, Lingard L. 2012b. Understanding responses to feedback: The potential and limitations of regulatory focus theory. Med Educ 46:593–603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar