Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills

Carolyn J. Vaughn, Edward Kim, Patricia O'Sullivan, Emily Huang, Matthew Y C Lin, Susannah Wyles, Barnard J A Palmer, Jonathan L Pierce, Hueylan Chern

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Methods Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Results Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size,.84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. Conclusions The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)355-360
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
Volume211
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Peer Group
Checklist
Curriculum

Keywords

  • Peer feedback
  • Peer-assisted learning
  • Residency training
  • Surgical education
  • Surgical skills
  • Video-based learning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Vaughn, C. J., Kim, E., O'Sullivan, P., Huang, E., Lin, M. Y. C., Wyles, S., ... Chern, H. (2016). Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills. American Journal of Surgery, 211(2), 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.034

Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills. / Vaughn, Carolyn J.; Kim, Edward; O'Sullivan, Patricia; Huang, Emily; Lin, Matthew Y C; Wyles, Susannah; Palmer, Barnard J A; Pierce, Jonathan L; Chern, Hueylan.

In: American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 211, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 355-360.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Vaughn, CJ, Kim, E, O'Sullivan, P, Huang, E, Lin, MYC, Wyles, S, Palmer, BJA, Pierce, JL & Chern, H 2016, 'Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills', American Journal of Surgery, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.034
Vaughn, Carolyn J. ; Kim, Edward ; O'Sullivan, Patricia ; Huang, Emily ; Lin, Matthew Y C ; Wyles, Susannah ; Palmer, Barnard J A ; Pierce, Jonathan L ; Chern, Hueylan. / Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 211, No. 2. pp. 355-360.
@article{c1d1df1c34964cd5a2ab8709247d6a7a,
title = "Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills",
abstract = "Background Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Methods Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Results Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size,.84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. Conclusions The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty.",
keywords = "Peer feedback, Peer-assisted learning, Residency training, Surgical education, Surgical skills, Video-based learning",
author = "Vaughn, {Carolyn J.} and Edward Kim and Patricia O'Sullivan and Emily Huang and Lin, {Matthew Y C} and Susannah Wyles and Palmer, {Barnard J A} and Pierce, {Jonathan L} and Hueylan Chern",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "211",
pages = "355--360",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills

AU - Vaughn, Carolyn J.

AU - Kim, Edward

AU - O'Sullivan, Patricia

AU - Huang, Emily

AU - Lin, Matthew Y C

AU - Wyles, Susannah

AU - Palmer, Barnard J A

AU - Pierce, Jonathan L

AU - Chern, Hueylan

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Background Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Methods Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Results Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size,.84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. Conclusions The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty.

AB - Background Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Methods Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Results Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size,.84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. Conclusions The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty.

KW - Peer feedback

KW - Peer-assisted learning

KW - Residency training

KW - Surgical education

KW - Surgical skills

KW - Video-based learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955697996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955697996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.034

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.034

M3 - Review article

VL - 211

SP - 355

EP - 360

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 2

ER -