Literature DB >> 17341511

Effectiveness of two forms of feedback on training of a joint mobilization skill by using a joint translation simulator.

Ju-Ying Chang1, Guan-Liang Chang, Chia-Jen Chang Chien, Kao-Chi Chung, Ar-Tyan Hsu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Joint mobilization is a complicated task to learn and to teach and is characterized by great intersubject variability. This study's purpose was to investigate whether quantitatively augmented feedback could enhance the learning of joint mobilization and, more specifically, to compare the effects of training with concurrent or terminal feedback by using a joint translation simulator (JTS).
SUBJECTS: Thirty-six undergraduate physical therapist students were randomly assigned to control (no feedback), concurrent feedback, and terminal feedback groups.
METHODS: The JTS was designed to simulate tissue resistance based on load-displacement relationships of glenohumeral joint specimens. Subjects applied specific mobilization grades of force on the JTS while quantitative feedback was given to the feedback groups either during a trial (ie, concurrent feedback) or after a trial (ie, terminal feedback). The skill acquisition phase lasted a total of 40 minutes, and a total of 75 repetitions were performed for each grade of each joint model. Pretest and no-feedback retention tests were conducted.
RESULTS: During acquisition and retention, both feedback groups performed more accurately than did the control group. No obviously superior performance was shown by the terminal feedback group compared with concurrent feedback group during retention testing. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: Subjects who trained with augmented feedback had less variability, and thus more consistency, than the control group subjects who received no feedback. Augmented feedback provides the student with a reference force and the status of his or her performance. The effectiveness of the JTS feedback compared with no feedback was clearly demonstrated. Skill acquisition in mobilization can be enhanced by either concurrent or terminal feedback.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17341511     DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20060154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  8 in total

1.  Use of Simulation Learning Experiences in Physical Therapy Entry-to-Practice Curricula: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brenda Mori; Heather Carnahan; Jodi Herold
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.037

Review 2.  Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review.

Authors:  Roland Sigrist; Georg Rauter; Robert Riener; Peter Wolf
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-02

3.  COVID 19 and manual therapy: international lessons and perspectives on current and future clinical practice and education.

Authors:  C W MacDonald; E Lonnemann; S M Petersen; Darren A Rivett; P G Osmotherly; J M Brismée
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2020-07

Review 4.  Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice in Medical Education - a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jillian Taras; Tobias Everett
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-04-19

5.  Simulation-based education improves student self-efficacy in physiotherapy assessment and management of paediatric patients.

Authors:  Judith Hough; Daniel Levan; Michael Steele; Kristine Kelly; Megan Dalton
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Differences in skill level influence the effects of visual feedback on motor learning.

Authors:  Ryohei Yamamoto; Kazunori Akizuki; Yoshihide Kanai; Wataru Nakano; Yasuto Kobayashi; Yukari Ohashi
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2019-11-26

7.  A Pilot Study Comparing the Effects of Concurrent and Terminal Visual Feedback on Standing Balance in Older Adults.

Authors:  Jamie Ferris; Vincent J Barone; Noel C Perkins; Kathleen H Sienko
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.847

Review 8.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education.

Authors:  Martin Sattelmayer; Simone Elsig; Roger Hilfiker; Gillian Baer
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 2.463

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.