Cargando…

Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study

BACKGROUND: The feedback given to students plays an important role in their efficiency related to learning practical skills. In the present study, diverse feedback modalities have been investigated. Our hypothesis is that individualized and unsupervised video feedback can produce a similar learning...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seifert, Lukas B., Herrera-Vizcaino, Carlos, Herguth, Philipp, Sterz, Jasmina, Sader, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7513537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32972404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02222-1
_version_ 1783586405369249792
author Seifert, Lukas B.
Herrera-Vizcaino, Carlos
Herguth, Philipp
Sterz, Jasmina
Sader, Robert
author_facet Seifert, Lukas B.
Herrera-Vizcaino, Carlos
Herguth, Philipp
Sterz, Jasmina
Sader, Robert
author_sort Seifert, Lukas B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The feedback given to students plays an important role in their efficiency related to learning practical skills. In the present study, diverse feedback modalities have been investigated. Our hypothesis is that individualized and unsupervised video feedback can produce a similar learning experience as performing practical skills in an oral and maxillofacial surgery setting with conventional direct expert feedback (control group). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled, and blinded study compared direct expert feedback (DEF), individualized video feedback (IVF) and unsupervised video feedback (UVF). The participants were fourth-year dental students from University Goethe in Frankfurt. The students were assigned to one of the three feedback methods (n = 20 per group) using simple randomization. All participants watched an instruction video for an interdental (‘Ernst’) ligature and periphery venous catheterization. Next, the students were video recorded performing the tasks by themselves (pre-test). Following this, every student received feedback using one of the above-mentioned feedback modalities. The participants then performed the same task again while being video recorded (post-test) to measure the acquired competence. Six weeks later, the students participated in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate their long-term knowledge retention. All examiners were blinded regarding the students’ instructional approach and their affiliation in terms of the learning group. RESULTS: For the interdental ligature, we found significant improvements in performance in each feedback modality group between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.001). UVF had the strongest effect on performance time. The comparison between each group in the post-test showed no significant differences between the three groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that IVF and UVF can be considered an alternative or adjunct to conventional methods (i.e. DEF) when learning procedural skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, DEF showed to be the most effective method of feedback and therefore preferable in teaching.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7513537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75135372020-09-25 Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study Seifert, Lukas B. Herrera-Vizcaino, Carlos Herguth, Philipp Sterz, Jasmina Sader, Robert BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: The feedback given to students plays an important role in their efficiency related to learning practical skills. In the present study, diverse feedback modalities have been investigated. Our hypothesis is that individualized and unsupervised video feedback can produce a similar learning experience as performing practical skills in an oral and maxillofacial surgery setting with conventional direct expert feedback (control group). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled, and blinded study compared direct expert feedback (DEF), individualized video feedback (IVF) and unsupervised video feedback (UVF). The participants were fourth-year dental students from University Goethe in Frankfurt. The students were assigned to one of the three feedback methods (n = 20 per group) using simple randomization. All participants watched an instruction video for an interdental (‘Ernst’) ligature and periphery venous catheterization. Next, the students were video recorded performing the tasks by themselves (pre-test). Following this, every student received feedback using one of the above-mentioned feedback modalities. The participants then performed the same task again while being video recorded (post-test) to measure the acquired competence. Six weeks later, the students participated in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate their long-term knowledge retention. All examiners were blinded regarding the students’ instructional approach and their affiliation in terms of the learning group. RESULTS: For the interdental ligature, we found significant improvements in performance in each feedback modality group between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.001). UVF had the strongest effect on performance time. The comparison between each group in the post-test showed no significant differences between the three groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that IVF and UVF can be considered an alternative or adjunct to conventional methods (i.e. DEF) when learning procedural skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, DEF showed to be the most effective method of feedback and therefore preferable in teaching. BioMed Central 2020-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7513537/ /pubmed/32972404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02222-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Seifert, Lukas B.
Herrera-Vizcaino, Carlos
Herguth, Philipp
Sterz, Jasmina
Sader, Robert
Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title_full Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title_fullStr Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title_short Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
title_sort comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7513537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32972404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02222-1
work_keys_str_mv AT seifertlukasb comparisonofdifferentfeedbackmodalitiesforthetrainingofproceduralskillsinoralandmaxillofacialsurgeryablindedrandomizedandcontrolledstudy
AT herreravizcainocarlos comparisonofdifferentfeedbackmodalitiesforthetrainingofproceduralskillsinoralandmaxillofacialsurgeryablindedrandomizedandcontrolledstudy
AT herguthphilipp comparisonofdifferentfeedbackmodalitiesforthetrainingofproceduralskillsinoralandmaxillofacialsurgeryablindedrandomizedandcontrolledstudy
AT sterzjasmina comparisonofdifferentfeedbackmodalitiesforthetrainingofproceduralskillsinoralandmaxillofacialsurgeryablindedrandomizedandcontrolledstudy
AT saderrobert comparisonofdifferentfeedbackmodalitiesforthetrainingofproceduralskillsinoralandmaxillofacialsurgeryablindedrandomizedandcontrolledstudy