Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 79

  Table of Contents  
COMMENTARY
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 300-301  

Multi-source feedback: A tool for assessment


Department of Community Medicine, IPGME and R and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Date of Submission28-May-2019
Date of Decision04-Jun-2019
Date of Acceptance03-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication20-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Mausumi Basu
Department of Community Medicine, IPGME and R and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_143_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Basu M. Multi-source feedback: A tool for assessment. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth 2020;13:300-1

How to cite this URL:
Basu M. Multi-source feedback: A tool for assessment. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 5];13:300-1. Available from: https://www.mjdrdypv.org/text.asp?2020/13/4/300/290158



Multi-source feedback (MSF), also known as 360° feedback, multi-rater feedback, or multi-source assessment refers to a process for appraisals of a person through feedback, derived from two or more distinct categories of individuals, often including a self-evaluation.

Actually, it is the combined evaluation of a person by various individuals, both by physicians and nonphysicians called the “Raters” (physicians include seniors, specialists, peers, teammates, and supervisors; nonphysicians include patients, administrative personnel, support staffs, nursing staff, attenders, laboratory staff, and relatives of the patient) that have different working relationships with the person, through the use of questionnaires and a compiled feedback report.

MSF was started as an alternative method from the traditional style of “downward reviews” to combination of “upward” (feedback delivered to management by subordinates only), “downward” (the reverse), and “'lateral” feedback (among peers), plus self-assessment.

The 360° assessment is has its origin in the military assessment centers developed during World War II. The private industry started to experiment with the MSF in the 1960s and 1970s. Corporations such as Federal Express, Bank of America, Bell Labs, and Disney World used the method in job evaluations, promotion boards, and talent selection (Boyd, 2005).[1]

In recent years, MSF is a central element of assessments in several countries. Canada was the first country to start MSF questionnaires in a revalidation programs for doctors.[2]

Although it is widely used in industrial settings; nowadays, it is gaining acceptance as a quality improvement method in health systems also and used by clinicians, students, house surgeons or interns, postgraduate students, and senior resident. MSF is now widely accepted as a competency-based assessment technique globally.

MSF was originally designed to be formative in purpose – to provide feedback to individuals to increase their awareness of their performance, and to guide learning and improvement.

It can be used for both formative and summative assessments and can be used for teachers and students.

There is significant evidence to support its use within the medical education field (Norcini, 2003; Ramsey et al., 1993). Many reviews have been undertaken in Canada and the UK (Archer et al., 2005; Hall et al., 1999; Sargeant et al., 2005; Violato et al., 2003; Violato et al. 1997; Whitehouse et al., 2005).

Moonen-van Loon et al. believed that the reliability of MSF is influenced by the assessor groups and the competencies included in the assessment, which should be considered when designing assessment instruments.[3]

As per Probyn et al.,[4] the self-assessment feature of MSF helps a resident to compare the accuracy of his/her assessments to improve his/her life-long learning skills.

MSF is most effective:

  1. When it includes both narrative comments and statistical data
  2. When the sources are credible
  3. When the feedback is constructively framed
  4. When the whole process is tag along with good mentoring and follow-up.


Berk proposed MSF to evaluate students' professionalism, as more accurate, reliable, fair, and equitable decisions than the one based on just a single source.[1]

There are several characteristics of 360° MSF models[1] which include: (1) employee must be involved in selection of rates; (2) raters must be credible and knowledgeable; (3) behaviors and outcomes rated must relate to actual job tasks; (4) medium size sample of raters to promote anonymity and to increase reliability; (5) a common scale for all raters; (6) The Likert scale with 4–7 options can be used; (7) scales should be administered online, not on paper to maintain anonymity, increase response rates, increase quality of comments; (8) feedback should be face-to-face, timely, sensitive, and regular; and (9) improvements in performance must be documented over time.

Nowadays, MSF is changing focus from industry to academia. Different methods are available to assess the performance.[5] However, in India, its use is limited.

Few universities at West made available an easy-to-use, web-based MSF instrument for residents.

Mini-peer assessment tool, modified from Sheffield peer review assessment tool, is an established MSF (360°) instrument.[6]

The team assessment behavior is another assessment tool used for MSF in postgraduate and undergraduate medicine.[7]

“Feedback on performance for trainers” tool is also an MSF instrument that may be used to gather information.[8]

Many studies supported the fact that MSF creates positive changes in behavior, though it may be in small amount, especially in the first 6 months between the pre- and post-assessment deployment, often sustained for as many as 4 years.

Advantages of MSF are:

  1. Relatively inexpensive and flexible way of compiling data from a variety of sources
  2. With multiple points-of-view considered, reduces the chance of bias
  3. Since the observations are from the learner's workplace, they are based on actual, not potential, and performance.


Possible pitfalls that can arise in MSF:

  1. Destructive feedback can be damaging to individual
  2. Anonymity may be used to express grudges
  3. It is a very time-consuming process
  4. Inadequate feedback
  5. Requires significant cooperation from the participants
  6. Protecting patients and coworkers confidentiality is paramount.




 
  References Top

1.
Berk RA. Using the 360 degrees multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism. Med Teach 2009;31:1073-80.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, et al. Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: The physician achievement review. CMAJ 1999;161:52-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Moonen-van Loon JM, Overeem K, Govaerts MJ, Verhoeven BH, van der Vleuten CP, Driessen EW, et al. The reliability of multisource feedback in competency-based assessment programs: The effects of multiple occasions and assessor groups. Acad Med 2015;90:1093-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Probyn L, Lang C, Tomlinson G, Bandiera G. Multisource feedback and self-assessment of the communicator, collaborator, and professional canMEDS roles for diagnostic radiology residents. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65:379-84.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Meenakshi G. Multi source feedback based performance appraisal system using fuzzy logic decision support system. Int J Soft Comput 2012;3:91-106.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Archer J, Norcini J, Southgate L, Heard S, Davies H. Mini-PAT (Peer assessment tool): A valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13:181-92.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Pant M, Nesargikar PN, Cocker DM. Team assessment behaviour (TAB) as an assessment tool: A critical evaluation. Br Med J Pract 2009;2:35-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Egbe M, Baker P. Development of a multisource feedback instrument for clinical supervisors in postgraduate medical training. Clin Med 2012;12:239-43.  Back to cited text no. 8
    




 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed485    
    Printed45    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded100    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal