The main study consisted of a randomized treatment comparison group design with pre- and posttest intervals. The purpose was to assess the differential impact of two different forms of constructive feedback---descriptive and evaluative---on participants' performance self-efficacy within a growth-oriented appraisal context. It was hypothesized that descriptive constructive feedback would lead to higher observed growth in performance self-efficacy. The results of the main study revealed that although all participants showed evidence of significant improvement from having participated in the study, there was no differential effect between participants in different treatment conditions. Post hoc analysis of qualitative data revealed contamination between the treatment conditions suggesting that the main effect for feedback condition was confounded. The results are discussed in terms of the methodological challenges facing researchers interested in testing the hypothesis that descriptive feedback is superior to evaluative feedback in enhancing performance self-efficacy. The failure of the randomized treatment group design to yield valid results is framed as a basis for considering developing methodologies in this area.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uottawa.ca/oai:ruor.uottawa.ca:10393/9242 |
| Date | January 2001 |
| Creators | Donohue, John J. |
| Contributors | Cousins, J. Brad, |
| Publisher | University of Ottawa (Canada) |
| Source Sets | Université d’Ottawa |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 222 p. |
Page generated in 0.012 seconds