Skip to main content

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare e-Feedback Versus “Standard” Face-to-Face Verbal Feedback to Improve the Acquisition of Procedural Skill

Al-Jundi, W., Elsharif, M., Anderson, M., Chan, P., Beard, J., Nawaz, S. (2017) A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare e-Feedback Versus “Standard” Face-to-Face Verbal Feedback to Improve the Acquisition of Procedural Skill. Journal of Surgical Education, 74 (3). pp. 390-397. ISSN 19317204 (ISSN). (doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.011) (KAR id:78318)


Background: Constructive feedback plays an important role in learning during surgical training. Standard feedback is usually given verbally following direct observation of the procedure by a trained assessor. However, such feedback requires the physical presence of expert faculty members who are usually busy and time-constrained by clinical commitments. We aim to evaluate electronic feedback (e-feedback) after video observation of surgical suturing in comparison with standard face-to-face verbal feedback. Methods: A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing e-feedback with standard verbal feedback was carried out in February 2015 using a validated pro formas for assessment. The study participants were 38 undergraduate medical students from the University of Sheffield, UK. They were recorded on video performing the procedural skill, completed a self-evaluation form, and received e-feedback on the same day (group 1); observed directly by an assessor, invited to provide verbal self-reflection, and then received standard verbal feedback (group 2). In both groups, the feedback was provided after performing the procedure. The participants returned 2 days later and performed the same skill again. Poststudy questionnaire was used to assess the acceptability of each feedback among the participants. Results: Overall, 19 students in group 1 and 18 students in group 2 completed the study. Although there was a significant improvement in the overall mean score on the second performance of the task for all participants (first performance mean 11.59, second performance mean 15.95; p ≤ 0.0001), there was no difference in the overall mean improvement score between group 1 and group 2 (4.74 and 3.94, respectively; p = 0.49). The mean overall scores for the e-feedback group at baseline recorded by 2 independent investigators showed good agreement (mean overall scores of 12.84 and 11.89; Cronbach α = 0.86). Poststudy questionnaire demonstrated that both e-feedback and standard verbal feedback achieved high mean Likert grades as recorded by the participants (4.42 [range: 2-5] and 4.71 [range: 4-5], respectively; p = 0.274). Conclusion: e-Feedback after watching a video recording appears to be acceptable and is not quantitatively different than standard feedback in improving suturing skills among novice trainees. Video assessment of procedural skills is reliable.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.011
Uncontrolled keywords: e-learning, feedback, procedural skills, surgical training, video recording, Article, communication skill, constructive feedback, controlled study, electronic feedback, feedback system, human, interrater reliability, medical student, priority journal, prospective study, self evaluation, standard, surgical training, suture technique, verbal communication, videorecording, clinical competence, comparative study, education, female, general surgery, interpersonal communication, male, medical education, medical school, organization and management, procedures, psychological feedback, randomized controlled trial, single blind procedure, statistics and numerical data, United Kingdom, videorecording, Clinical Competence, Communication, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Feedback, Psychological, Female, General Surgery, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Schools, Medical, Single-Blind Method, Students, Medical, Suture Techniques, United Kingdom, Video Recording
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Natural Sciences > Kent and Medway Medical School
Depositing User: Philip Chan
Date Deposited: 07 Nov 2019 10:51 UTC
Last Modified: 14 Dec 2023 04:14 UTC
Resource URI: (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)

University of Kent Author Information

  • Depositors only (login required):

Total unique views for this document in KAR since July 2020. For more details click on the image.