Xeroulis George J, Park Jason, Moulton Carol-Anne, Reznick Richard K, Leblanc Vicki, Dubrowski Adam
Department of Surgery, and the Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, CRE at the University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Surgery. 2007 Apr;141(4):442-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.09.012. Epub 2007 Jan 25.
We carried out a prospective, randomized, 4-arm study including control arm, blinding of examiners to determine effectiveness of computer-based video instruction (CBVI) and different types of expert feedback (concurrent and summary) on learning of a basic technical skill.
Using bench models, participants were pre-tested on a suturing and instrument knot-tying skill after viewing an instructional video. The students were subsequently assigned randomly to 4 practice conditions: no additional intervention (control), self study with CBVI, expert feedback during practice trials (concurrent feedback), and expert feedback after practice trials (summary feedback). All participants underwent 19 trials of practice, over 1 hour, in their assigned training condition. The effectiveness of training was assessed both at an immediate post-test and 1 month later at a retention test. Performance was evaluated using both expert-based (Global Rating Scores) and computer-based assessment (Hand Motion Analysis). Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA.
There were no differences in GRS between groups at pre-test. The CBVI, concurrent feedback and summary feedback methods were equally effective initially for the instruction of this basic technical skill to naive medical students and displayed better performance than control (control, 12.71 [10.79 to 14.62]; CBVI, 16.39 [14.38 to 18.40]; concurrent, 16.97 [15.79 to 18.15]; summary, 16.09 [13.57 to 18.62]; P < .001 each). At retention. however, only CBVI and summary feedback groups retained superior suturing and knot-tying performance versus control (control, 8.13 [6.94 to 9.85]; CBVI, 11.92 [10.19 to 14.99] P = .037; concurrent, 9.80 [8.55 to 13.45] P = .635; summary, 111.19 [10.27 to 14.29] P = .037). Hand motion data displayed a similar pattern of results. There were no group differences in the rate of learning (P > .05).
Our study showed that CBVI can be as effective as summary expert feedback in the instruction of basic technical skills to medical students. Thoughtfully incorporated into technical curricula, CBVI can make efficient use of faculty time and serve as a useful pedagogic adjunct for basic skills training. Additionally, our study provides evidence supporting an increased role of summary feedback to effectively train novices in technical skills.
我们开展了一项前瞻性、随机、四臂研究,包括对照组,对检查者进行盲法处理,以确定基于计算机的视频教学(CBVI)以及不同类型的专家反馈(同步反馈和总结反馈)对一项基本技术技能学习的有效性。
使用实验台模型,参与者在观看教学视频后,先接受了一项缝合和器械打结技能的预测试。随后,学生被随机分配到4种练习条件下:无额外干预(对照组)、使用CBVI自学、练习过程中接受专家反馈(同步反馈)以及练习后接受专家反馈(总结反馈)。所有参与者在其指定的训练条件下进行了19次练习,时长超过1小时。在即时后测和1个月后的留存测试中评估训练效果。使用基于专家的(整体评分)和基于计算机的评估(手部动作分析)来评估表现。数据采用重复测量方差分析进行分析。
预测试时,各组间的整体评分无差异。CBVI、同步反馈和总结反馈方法在最初对医学新手学生进行这项基本技术技能教学时同样有效,且表现优于对照组(对照组,12.71[10.79至14.62];CBVI,16.39[14.38至18.40];同步反馈,16.97[15.79至18.15];总结反馈,16.09[13.57至18.62];每组P <.001)。然而,在留存测试时,只有CBVI组和总结反馈组在缝合和打结表现上优于对照组(对照组,8.13[6.94至9.85];CBVI,11.92[10.19至14.99],P =.037;同步反馈,9.80[8.55至13.45],P =.635;总结反馈,11.19[10.27至14.29],P =.037)。手部动作数据显示出类似的结果模式。学习速率在各组间无差异(P>.05)。
我们的研究表明,在向医学生教授基本技术技能方面,CBVI与专家总结反馈的效果相当。若精心纳入技术课程,CBVI可有效利用教师时间,并作为基本技能训练的有益教学辅助手段。此外,我们的研究提供了证据,支持总结反馈在有效培训新手技术技能方面发挥更大作用。