Abstract
The purpose of this survey study was to investigate allied health faculty members' and students' ratings of the clinical educational feedback process. Faculty members and students from seven allied health programs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, who were currently involved with clinical education, were asked to indicate their feelings on a seven-point scale for each of 22 feedback characteristics. An ANOVA and a Scheffe's test for post hoc analysis were used for data analyses. The results indicated that while both faculty members and students perceived eight feedback characteristics as equally important, they differed significantly (p less than .01) in their ratings of actual feedback provided in the characteristics of specific, timely, encouraging, and recommending improvement. Other significant faculty/student discrepancies were found in the area of student reception of feedback provided. The results are useful to guide and direct improvements in the clinical education of allied health students.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 115-121 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of allied health |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - May 1 1988 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cite this
Ratings of clinical clerkship feedback by allied health faculty and students. / Hageman, Patricia Ann.
In: Journal of allied health, Vol. 17, No. 2, 01.05.1988, p. 115-121.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Ratings of clinical clerkship feedback by allied health faculty and students.
AU - Hageman, Patricia Ann
PY - 1988/5/1
Y1 - 1988/5/1
N2 - The purpose of this survey study was to investigate allied health faculty members' and students' ratings of the clinical educational feedback process. Faculty members and students from seven allied health programs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, who were currently involved with clinical education, were asked to indicate their feelings on a seven-point scale for each of 22 feedback characteristics. An ANOVA and a Scheffe's test for post hoc analysis were used for data analyses. The results indicated that while both faculty members and students perceived eight feedback characteristics as equally important, they differed significantly (p less than .01) in their ratings of actual feedback provided in the characteristics of specific, timely, encouraging, and recommending improvement. Other significant faculty/student discrepancies were found in the area of student reception of feedback provided. The results are useful to guide and direct improvements in the clinical education of allied health students.
AB - The purpose of this survey study was to investigate allied health faculty members' and students' ratings of the clinical educational feedback process. Faculty members and students from seven allied health programs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, who were currently involved with clinical education, were asked to indicate their feelings on a seven-point scale for each of 22 feedback characteristics. An ANOVA and a Scheffe's test for post hoc analysis were used for data analyses. The results indicated that while both faculty members and students perceived eight feedback characteristics as equally important, they differed significantly (p less than .01) in their ratings of actual feedback provided in the characteristics of specific, timely, encouraging, and recommending improvement. Other significant faculty/student discrepancies were found in the area of student reception of feedback provided. The results are useful to guide and direct improvements in the clinical education of allied health students.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024007779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024007779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 3384735
AN - SCOPUS:0024007779
VL - 17
SP - 115
EP - 121
JO - Journal of Allied Health
JF - Journal of Allied Health
SN - 0090-7421
IS - 2
ER -