EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 18 / Numéro 4 (Novembre 2017) Pédagogie Médicale, 18 4 (2017) 161-170 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 18, Numéro 4, Novembre 2017
Page(s) 161 - 170
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2018017
Publié en ligne 12 décembre 2018
  1. Kilminster SM, Cottrell D, Grant J, Jolly B. AMEE Guide no. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision. Med Teach 2007;29:2‐19. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ramani S, Leinster S. AMEE Guide no. 34: Teaching in the clinical environment. Med Teach 2008;30:347‐64. [Google Scholar]
  3. Côté L, Perry G, Cloutier PA. Développer son modèle de rôle en formation pratique : la contribution d’une communauté de pratique de cliniciens enseignants. Pédagogie Médicale 2013;14:243‐51. [Google Scholar]
  4. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide no. 31. Med Teach 2007;29:855‐71. [Google Scholar]
  5. Teunissen PW, Stapel DA, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier A, Boor K, Scheele F. Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents’ feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts. Acad Med 2009;84:910‐17. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mann KV, van der Vleuten CP, Eva KW, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Sargeant J. Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med 2011;86:1120‐27. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sargeant J, Eva KW, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Lockyer JM, Loney E, Mann KV, van der Vleuten CP. Features of assessment learners use to make informed self-assessments of clinical performance. Med Educ 2011;45:636‐47. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, Sargeant J. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012;17:15‐26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Watling, C, Driessen, E, van der Vleuten, CP, Lingard, L. Learning from clinical work: the roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Med Educ 2012;46:192‐200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Watling C. Cognition, culture, and credibility: deconstructing feedback in medical education. Perspect Med Educ 2014;3:124‐28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. van de Ridder JM, Berk FC, Stokking KM, ten Cate OTJ. 2015a. Feedback providers’ credibility impacts students’ satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance. Med Teach 37:767-74. [Google Scholar]
  12. Telio S, Regehr G, Ajjawi R. Feedback and the educational alliance: examining credibility judgements and their consequences. Med Educ 2016;50:933‐42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bowen, L, Marshall, M, Murdoch-Eaton, D. Medical student perceptions of feedback and feedback behaviors within the context of the “Educational alliance”. Acad Med 2017;92:1303‐12. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ramani, S, Könings, KD, Mann, KV, van der Vleuten, CP. Uncovering the unknown: A grounded theory study exploring the impact of self-awareness on the culture of feedback in residency education. Med Teach 2017;39:1065‐73. [Google Scholar]
  15. Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Med Educ 2010;44:101‐08. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eva KW, Regehr G. Effective feedback for maintenance of competence: From data delivery to trusting dialogues. CMAJ 2013;185:463‐64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann KV, Holmboe E, Silver I, Armson H et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med 2015;90:1698‐1706. [Google Scholar]
  18. Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Acad Med 2015;90:609‐14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bordin ES. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychother Theory Res Pract 1979;16:252‐60. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bordin ES. A working alliance based model of supervision. Couns Psychol 1983;11:35‐42. [Google Scholar]
  21. Côté L. Réflexion sur une expérience de supervision clinique sous l’angle de l’alliance pédagogique. Pédagogie Médicale 2015;16:79‐84. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin C, Irby DM, Iobst W, O’Sullivan PS. Understanding trust as an essential element of trainee supervision and learning in the workplace. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2014;19:435-56. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hauer KE, Oza SK, Kogan JR, Stankiewicz CA, Stenfors-Hayes T, ten Cate O, Batt J, O’Sullivan PS. How clinical supervisors develop trust in their trainees: a qualitative study. Med Educ 2015;49:783-95. [Google Scholar]
  24. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  25. Watling CJ, Lingard L. Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide no. 70. Med Teach 2012;34:850‐61. [Google Scholar]
  26. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publ., 2007. [Google Scholar]
  27. Denzin NK. The research act: a theorical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  28. Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res 1995;5:147‐49. [Google Scholar]
  29. Paillé P. L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahiers de recherche sociologique 1994;23:147‐81. [Google Scholar]
  30. Martin P, Coopley J, Tyack Z. Twelve tips for effective clinical supervision based on a narrative literature review and expert opinion, Med Teach 2014;36:201‐207. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bernard J, Goodyear RK. Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Upper Saddle River (NY): Pearson, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. The feedback tango: An integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher-learner feedback exchange. Acad Med 2018;93:657‐63. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wearne S. Effective feedback and the educational alliance. Med Educ 2016;50:891‐92. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.