Student Perceptions of Formative Clinical Feedback During Clerkships.
11 affiliations
- 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL USA.
- 2Office of Curricular Affairs, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 3Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 4Center for Educator Development, Advancement, and Research, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 5Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA.
- 6Department of Surgery, Center for Anatomical Sciences and Education, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 7Department of Pediatrics, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Fairborn, OH USA.
- 8Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 9Department of Family and Community Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 10Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO USA.
- 11Office of Student Affairs, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 1402 S. Grand Boulevard, Caroline Hall 116, Saint Louis, MO USA.
Abstract
The clerkship phase of medical school is essential to the development of clinical skills necessary for medical practice. This phase depends heavily on formative feedback to help students recognize and address their strengths and weaknesses. Recent student evaluation of formative clinical feedback at Saint Louis University revealed a potential barrier in student implementation of feedback due to negative perceptions of the accuracy and utility of the formative feedback they received. Using Norcini et al.'s Consensus Framework for Good Assessment, we developed a survey to investigate the medical student perception of our institution's current system of formative feedback. Participants included 300 students in their third and fourth year medical students who had completed the clerkship phase. Response patterns indicated that, across years, Feasibility was rated highest and Catalytic Effect was rated lowest. Additionally, the only item rated higher than neutral was Feasibility, whereas Catalytic Effect, Equivalence, Acceptability, and Consistency were rated significantly below neutral. The patterns of results indicate (1) the practicality of the current formative feedback survey format and (2) students' reduced perception of the usefulness of the formative clinical feedback they receive. While this student perception is subjective in nature, it is a key metric to consider as perception has the potential to drive behavioral change. Other medical schools can consider examining their process and student perception of formative feedback using a framework of assessment similar to the Norcini framework to promote continuous quality improvement in undergraduate medical education.
Related
- Perceptions of child weight and health among Hispanic mothers in Arkansas: formative research for the La CASA trial
- Student Perceptions on Educational Handovers from Medical School to Residency.
- Patient Perceptions of Student Involvement and Satisfaction in a Student-Run Free Clinic Serving People Experiencing Homelessness
- AI In the Chair: ChatGPT In Dental Education—A Cross‐Sectional Study of Student Use and Perceptions in New Zealand
- Evaluating student perceptions of image-based audience response questions in medical education
BibTeX
@article{schein2026student,
title = {{Student Perceptions of Formative Clinical Feedback During Clerkships.}},
author = {Serena Schein and Isabel Banks and Paul Kunnath and Jasnoor Malhotra and Daniel T Daly and Loki Cortner and Ashraf Jardaly and Kristina Dzara and Cynthia Nebel},
journal = {Medical science educator},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1007/s40670-026-02821-5},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968718},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Student Perceptions of Formative Clinical Feedback During Clerkships.
AU - Serena Schein
AU - Isabel Banks
AU - Paul Kunnath
AU - Jasnoor Malhotra
AU - Daniel T Daly
AU - Loki Cortner
AU - Ashraf Jardaly
AU - Kristina Dzara
AU - Cynthia Nebel
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/20
JO - Medical science educator
DO - 10.1007/s40670-026-02821-5
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968718
AB - The clerkship phase of medical school is essential to the development of clinical skills necessary for medical practice. This phase depends heavily on formative feedback to help students recognize and address their strengths and weaknesses. Recent student evaluation of formative clinical feedback at Saint Louis University revealed a potential barrier in student implementation of feedback due to negative perceptions of the accuracy and utility of the formative feedback they received. Using Norcini et al.'s Consensus Framework for Good Assessment, we developed a survey to investigate the medical student perception of our institution's current system of formative feedback. Participants included 300 students in their third and fourth year medical students who had completed the clerkship phase. Response patterns indicated that, across years, Feasibility was rated highest and Catalytic Effect was rated lowest. Additionally, the only item rated higher than neutral was Feasibility, whereas Catalytic Effect, Equivalence, Acceptability, and Consistency were rated significantly below neutral. The patterns of results indicate (1) the practicality of the current formative feedback survey format and (2) students' reduced perception of the usefulness of the formative clinical feedback they receive. While this student perception is subjective in nature, it is a key metric to consider as perception has the potential to drive behavioral change. Other medical schools can consider examining their process and student perception of formative feedback using a framework of assessment similar to the Norcini framework to promote continuous quality improvement in undergraduate medical education.
SN - 2156-8650
ER -