期刊
ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 86, 期 10, 页码 S13-S17出版社
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822a72c7
关键词
-
资金
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Funding Source: Medline
Purpose To compare the effectiveness of expert-assisted learning (EAL), peer-assisted learning (PAL), and computer-assisted learning (CAL) on participants' procedural skills acquisition in the simulated setting. Method Sixty medical and nursing students practiced urinary catheterization in an expert-, peer- or computer-assisted, simulation-based, learning environment. Effectiveness of training was evaluated in the simulated setting using an immediate posttest and, one week later, on a retention and standardized patient-based transfer test. Measures included number of breaks in aseptic technique and blinded expert assessments. Results All groups performed similarly on the pre-, post-, and retention tests. At transfer, the EAL group performed significantly better than the PAL group as measured by global clinical performance, catheterization checklist scores, and number of breaks in aseptic technique (P < .05). Communication and catheterization global ratings were equivalent for all groups (P > .05). Conclusions CAL is as effective as expert feedback for teaching procedural skills to novices in the simulated setting. When extrinsic feedback is provided, the expertise level of the teacher seems to be a critical factor influencing effectiveness of training, with EAL being more effective than PAL.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据