Rosenberg Harold, Sander Melissa, Posluns James
University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):599-605. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.020.
The purposes of this review were to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-aided learning (CAL) in orthodontic education, to make evidence-based recommendations for the use of CAL in orthodontics, and to develop guidelines for conducting comparative trials to evaluate CAL as a mode of learning in orthodontic education.
Medline, the Cochrane Library Database, ERIC, CINAHL, LISA, Psycinfo, and IPA were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of CAL in orthodontics. Outcome measures included objectively measured posttest scores on multiple choice, written, or oral tests; performance on a clinical procedure or clinical interview; time spent on CAL programs to learn the material presented; and responses to questionnaires conveying participants' attitudes toward various modes of learning.
Four randomized controlled trials comparing CAL with conventional teaching fulfilled the inclusion criteria and met the cutoff quality assessment checklist (QAC) score of > or = 8. Each study was assessed for quality by 2 independent reviewers. The validity and strength of the selected studies were assessed by using a QAC for an educational intervention.
The controlled trials of CAL in orthodontics that met our QAC cutoff score of 8 were split, with 2 showing that CAL enjoyed a significant advantage over conventional teaching, 1 showing no difference, and 1 showing that the conventional tutorial method was better. More high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of CAL in orthodontics are needed. CAL programs in orthodontics elicit mostly positive responses and attitudes from students toward learning.
本综述的目的是评估计算机辅助学习(CAL)在正畸教育中的有效性,为CAL在正畸学中的应用提供循证建议,并制定进行比较试验的指南,以评估CAL作为正畸教育学习模式的效果。
检索了Medline、Cochrane图书馆数据库、教育资源信息中心(ERIC)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、图书馆与信息科学文摘数据库(LISA)、心理学文摘数据库(Psycinfo)和国际药学文摘数据库(IPA),以查找评估CAL在正畸学中有效性的随机对照试验。结果指标包括在多项选择、书面或口头测试中客观测量的后测分数;临床操作或临床访谈中的表现;花在CAL程序上学习所呈现材料的时间;以及传达参与者对各种学习模式态度的问卷回复。
四项将CAL与传统教学进行比较的随机对照试验符合纳入标准,并达到了质量评估清单(QAC)得分≥8的截断值。每项研究由两名独立评审员进行质量评估。使用教育干预的QAC评估所选研究的有效性和强度。
符合我们QAC截断值8的正畸学中CAL的对照试验结果不一,两项试验表明CAL比传统教学具有显著优势,一项试验表明无差异,一项试验表明传统辅导方法更好。需要更多高质量试验来评估CAL在正畸学中的有效性。正畸学中的CAL程序大多能引起学生对学习的积极反应和态度。