EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 23 / Numéro 1 (2022) Pédagogie Médicale, 23 1 (2022) 7-16 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 23, Number 1, 2022
Page(s) 7 - 16
Section Recherche et Perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021028
Published online 11 mai 2022
  1. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: The perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med 2005;80:S84‐S87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cleland JA, Knight LV, Rees CE, Tracey S, Bond CM. Is it me or is it them? Factors that influence the passing of underperforming students. Med Educ 2008;42:800‐09. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Karpenko V, Gidycz CA. The supervisory relationship and the process of evaluation: Recommendations for supervisors. Clin Superv 2012;31:138‐5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Larocque S, Luhanga FL. Exploring the issue of failure to fail in a nursing program. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh 2013;10:1‐8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Guerrasio J, Furfari KA, Rosenthal LD, Nogar CL, Wray KW, Aagaard EM. Failure to fail: the institutional perspective. Med Teach 2014;36:799‐803. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Yepes-Rios M, Dudek N, Duboyce R, Curtis J, Allard RJ, Varpio L. The failure to fail underperforming trainees in health professions education: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 42. Med Teach 2016;38:1092‐99. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mak-van der Rossum M. “Failure to fail”: The teacher’s dilemma revisited. Med Educ 2019;53:106‐114. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gingerich A, Sebok-Syer SS, Larstone R, Watlings CJ, Lingard L. Seeing but not believing: Insights into the intractability of failure to fail. Med Educ 2020;54:1148‐58. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Oandasan I, Saucier D (Eds.). Rapport sur le Cursus Triple C axé sur le développement des compétences – Partie 2 : Faire progresser la mise en œuvre. Mississauga (ON): Collège des médecins de famille du Canada, 2013 [On-line]. Disponible sur : https://www.cfpc.ca/CFPC/media/Ressources/%c3%89ducation/TripleC_Rapport_2.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernard J, Goodyear RK. Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Upper Saddle River (NY): Pearson, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Ramani S, Leinster S. AMEE Guide no. 34: Teaching in the clinical environment. Med Teach 2008;30:347‐64. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wearne S, Dornan T, Teunissen PW, Skinner T. General practitioners as supervisors in postgraduate clinical education: An integrative review. Med Educ 2002;46:1161‐73. [Google Scholar]
  14. Côté L, Laurin S, Sanche G. Échanger de la rétroaction avec les étudiants. Dans: Pelaccia T (sous la direction de). Comment (mieux) superviser les étudiants en sciences de la santé dans les stages et dans leurs activités de recherche. Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur, 2018:81‐109. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ajjawi R, Boud D. Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Ass Eval High Educ 2018;43:1106‐19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ajjawi R, Regehr G. When I say… feedback. Med Educ 2019;53:652‐54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kemp H, Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, McKelvy D. Feedback for learners in medical education: What is known? A scoping review. Acad Med. 2017;92:1346‐54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Molloy E, Ajjawi R, Bearman M, Noble C, Rudland J, Ryan A. Challenging feedback myths: Values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task. Med Educ 2020;54:33‐39. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bordin ES. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychother Theory Res Pract 1979;16:252‐60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bordin ES. A working alliance based model of supervision. Couns Psychol 1983;11:35‐42. [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Giroux M, Girard G. Favoriser la position d’apprentissage grâce à l’interaction superviseur-supervisé. Pédagogie Médicale 2009;10:193‐210. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  23. Giroux M, Saucier D, Cameron C, Rheault C. La position d’apprentissage. Un incontournable pour le développement des compétences. Can Fam Phy 2016;62:86‐89. [Google Scholar]
  24. Côté L, Breton E, Boucher D, Déry É, Roux JF. L’alliance pédagogique en supervision clinique : une étude qualitative en sciences de la santé. Pédagogie Médicale 2017;18:161‐70. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  25. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publishing, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  26. Denzin NK. The research act: A theorical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  27. Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res 1995;5:147‐49. [Google Scholar]
  28. Paillé P, Muchielli A. L’analyse thématique. Dans: L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. Malakoff: Armand Colin, 2016, pp. 235‐312. [Google Scholar]
  29. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 2006;27:237‐46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosen S, Tesser A. On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry 1970;33:253‐63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Scarff CE, Bearman M, Chiavaroli N, Trumbler S. Keeping mum in clinical supervision: Private thoughts and public judgements. Med Educ 2019;53:133‐42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten C, Eva, KW, Lingard L. Hedging to save face: A linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports. Adv Health Sci Educ 2016;21:175‐88. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rees CE, Knight LV, Cleland JA. Medical educators’ metaphoric talk about their assessment relationships with students: “You don’t want to sort of be the one who sticks the knife in them”. Ass Eval High Educ 2009;34: 455‐67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.