Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 275–288

Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use

  • Joan Sargeant
  • Karen Mann
  • Douglas Sinclair
  • Cees Van der Vleuten
  • Job Metsemakers
Article
  • 1.2k Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Receiving negative performance feedback can elicit negative emotional reactions which can interfere with feedback acceptance and use. This study investigated emotional responses of family physicians’ participating in a multi-source feedback (MSF) program, sources of these emotions, and their influence upon feedback acceptance and use.

Methods

The authors interviewed 28 volunteer family physician participants in a pilot study of MSF, purposefully recruited to represent the range of scores. The study was conducted in 2003–2004 at Dalhousie University.

Results

Participants’ emotional reactions to feedback appeared to be elicited in response to an internal comparison of their feedback with self-perceptions of performance. Those agreeing with their feedback; i.e., perceiving it as generally consistent with or higher than self-perceptions responded positively, while those disagreeing with their feedback; i.e., seeing it as generally inconsistent with or lower than self-perceptions, generally responded with distress. For the latter group, these feelings were often strong and long-lasting. Some eventually accepted their feedback and used it for change following a long period of reflection. Others did not and described an equally long reflective period but one which focused on and questioned MSF procedures rather than addressed feedback use. Participants suggested providing facilitated reflection on feedback to enhance assimilation of troubling emotions and interpretation and use of feedback.

Conclusions

Negative feedback can evoke negative feelings and interfere with its acceptance. To overcome this, helpful interventions may include raising awareness of the influence of emotions, assisting recipients to focus their feedback on performance tasks, and providing facilitated reflection on feedback.

Keywords

continuing professional development culture emotions facilitating feedback multi-source feedback performance assessment professionalism reflection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashford S.J., Blatt R., VandeWalle D (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback- seeking behaviour in organizations Journal of Management 29(6): 773–799Google Scholar
  2. Atwater L.E. Waldman D.A., Brett J.F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback Human Resources Management Review 41(2): 193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A. (1995). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett H., Gatrell J., Packham R. (2004). Medical appraisal: collecting evidence of performance through 360 feedback Clinician in Management 12: 165–171Google Scholar
  5. Boud D., Keough R., Walker D. (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Boud, D. (2002). The unexamined life is not the life of learning: rethinking assessment for lifelong learning. Professional lecture presented at Trent Park, Middlesex University, London UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bracken D.W., Timmreck C.W., Church A.H. (2001). The Handbook for Multisource Feedback Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Brett J.F., Atwater L. (2001). 360 Feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5): 930–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeNisi A., Kluger A.N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executives 14(1): 129–139Google Scholar
  10. Evans R., Elwyn G., Edwards A. (2004). Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians British Medical Journal 328(7450): 1240–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fidler H., Lockyer J.M., Toews J., Violato C. (1999). Changing physician’ practices: the effect of individual feedback Academic Medicine 74(6): 702–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freidson E. (1994). Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy, and Policy University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Gielen S., Dochy F., Diericks S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes true assessment effects In: Sigers M., Dochy F., Cascallar E. (eds) Optimising New Modes of Assessment: in Search of Qualities and Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodstone M., Diamante T. (1998). Organizational use of therapeutic change: strengthening multisource feedback systems through interdisciplinary coaching Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 50(3): 152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, W., Violato, C., Lewkonia, R., Lockyer, J., Fidler, H., Toews, J., et al. (1999). Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: The physician achievement review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 61:52–57Google Scholar
  16. Johns C. (2002). Guided Reflection: Advancing Practice Blackwell publishing, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Kluger A.N., DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory Psychological Bulletin 119: 254–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipner R.S., Blank L.L., Leas B.F., Fortna G.S. (2002). The value of patient and peer ratings in recertification Acad Med 77(10): S64–S66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockyer J., Violato C., Fidler H. (2003). Likelihood of change: a study assessing surgeon use of multisource feedback data Teaching & Learning In Medicine 15(3): 168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moon J. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice Stylus Publishing, Herdon, VAGoogle Scholar
  21. Mory E.H. (2004). Feedback research revisited In: Jonassen D (ed) Handbook for Education Communications and Technology. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 745–783Google Scholar
  22. Nova Scotia Physician Achievement Review (NSPAR) Program. (2005). <http://www.nspar.ca/>. Accessed 04/04/06. College of Physician and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NSGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramsey P.G., Wenrich M.D., Carline J.D., Inui T.S., Larson E.B., LoGerfo J.P. (1993) Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance JAMA 269: 1655–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rice P.L., Ezzy D. (2000). Qualitative Research Methods Oxford University Press, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. Sargeant J., Mann K., Ferrier S. (2005). Exploring family physicians’ reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness Medical Education 39(5): 497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sargeant J.M., Mann K.V., Ferrier S.N., Langille D., Muirhead P.D., Hayes V.M. (2003). Responses of rural family physicians and their colleague and coworker raters to a multi-source feedback process: a pilot study Academic Medicine 10(Suppl): S42–S44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smither J.W., London M., Reilly R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multi source feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings Personnel Psychology 58: 33–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Violato C., Marini A., Toews J., Lockyer J., Fidler H. (1997) Feasibility and psychometric properties of using peers, consulting physicians, co-workers, and patients to assess physicians Acad Med 72(10): S82–S84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Sargeant
    • 1
  • Karen Mann
    • 2
  • Douglas Sinclair
    • 3
  • Cees Van der Vleuten
    • 4
  • Job Metsemakers
    • 5
  1. 1.Continuing Medical Education, Faculty of MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Division of Medical Education, Faculty of MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Continuing Medical Education, Faculty of MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  4. 4.Department of Educational Development and ResearchMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of General PracticeMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations