Multisource Feedback: Everyone Has a Say, But Who Is Listening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multisource feedback involves the collection of feedback from multiple groups of assessors, including those who do not traditionally have a hierarchal responsibility to evaluate physicians. Theoretically, the feedback collectively provides a thorough view of physician performance in daily practice in the humanistic and relational competencies. This study explored perceptions of multisource feedback and prerequisites to an effective multisource feedback program in postgraduate medical education from the perspectives of both pediatrics residents and allied health care professionals.Methods: This exploratory case study utilized a pediatrics inpatient unit where multisource feedback has not yet been implemented. Three focus groups were conducted with purposefully recruited participants from 3 distinct groups: junior pediatrics residents, senior pediatrics residents, and allied health care professionals. Discussions were audio recorded, subsequently transcribed, and analyzed with thematic analysis.Results: Both residents and allied health care professionals expressed a strong interest in the concept of multisource feedback. However, more in-depth discussions identified barriers to residents' acceptance of and allied health care professionals' provision of feedback. Interpersonal dynamics, concerns about understanding, and misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities and power hierarchies were identified as barriers to both accepting and providing feedback. Interest in bidirectional feedback among allied health care providers and residents were expressed by all 3 focus groups.Conclusions: The barriers and prerequisites to providing and accepting multisource feedback identified suggestive limits to the efficacy of the multisource feedback process. Our findings suggest that these factors should be considered in the design and implementation of multisource feedback programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".