• Elizabeth Andrews, David N Dickter, Sorrel Stielstra, Gary Pape, and Sheree J Aston.
• Elizabeth Andrews, DDS, MS, is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor, College of Dental Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences; David N. Dickter, PhD, is Director of Interprofessional Education Research and Strategic Assessment, Office of Academic Affairs, Western University of Health Sciences; Sorrel Stielstra, PhD, is Senior Research Analyst, Office of Academic Affairs, Western University of Health Sciences; Gary Pape, MA, DDS, is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Faculty Development, College of Dental Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences; and Sheree J. Aston, OD, MA, PhD, is Vice Provost, Office of Academic Affairs, Western University of Health Sciences. eandrews@westernu.edu.
• J Dent Educ. 2019 May 1; 83 (5): 536-545.

AbstractAlthough reviewing dental students' clinical competency assessments is an important aspect of instruction, finding time to give individual feedback to each student poses a challenge for faculty members, and some students may prefer to receive feedback from a peer. The aim of this study was to explore dental students' perceived value of feedback on their performance in a simulated patient care activity from either a faculty member or a peer. Participants were third- and fourth-year dental students who had completed two years of interprofessional instruction and a videotaped objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with standardized patients. Participants in two cohorts were randomly assigned to a faculty or peer feedback group. Cohort one (2015-16) consisted of 66 students: 21 in faculty-led groups, and 45 in peer-led groups. Cohort two (2017) consisted of 60 students: 17 in faculty-led groups, and 43 in peer-led groups. In both types of pairings, the protocol consisted of jointly observing a video recording of student performance in the simulated patient encounter and discussing questions about the student's performance in non-technical competencies such as communication, patient safety, scope of practice, and conflict resolution. For cohort two, prior to the feedback sessions, students in the peer feedback groups received a 60-minute training on providing constructive feedback. All 126 students in the two cohorts completed an evaluation questionnaire after the experience. The results showed that students in both types of feedback sessions perceived value in the feedback and believed it enhanced their skills. However, students rated faculty feedback significantly higher (p<0.05) than peer feedback on nearly all dimensions. Perceived value did not differ by age, gender, class year, or OSCE performance. These results provide support for the value of peer feedback on nontechnical clinical competency assessments, though not as a substitute for faculty feedback.

25 keywords...

hide…