The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

verifiedmedium profile · Psychological Bulletin · 1996

Kluger, Avraham N.; DeNisi, Angelo

10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · CrossRef: verified · attribution required

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal addressed · external unclear · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.85

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

performance feedbacktask performance

d = 0.41 · k=607 · grade A · unverified

performance feedbackoverall job performance

d = 0.41 · k=607 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative—but largely ignored—effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average (d =.41) but that over '/3 of the FIs decreased perfor-mance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood. To relate feedback directly to behavior is very confusing. Results are contradictory and seldom straight-forward. (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979, p. 368) The effects of manipulation of KR [knowledge of results] on motor learning...reveal... some violent contradictions to earlier beliefs about KR, and some glaring absences in our knowledge. (Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter, 1984, p. 378). Feedback does not uniformly improve performance. (Balcazar,

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

2 supportinglegacy verdicts

No open-access quotations have been captured yet.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.

The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. · Principia