| Literature DB >> 30574007 |
Narendra Kumar1, Eqram Rahman2, Philip J Adds2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An understanding of facial anatomy is crucial for the safe practice of nonsurgical facial esthetic procedures. Contextual learning, aided with instructional design, enhances the trainees' overall learning experience and retention, and makes a positive impact on the performance of procedural skills. The present study aimed to develop a teaching approach based on Bloom's taxonomy involving cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning domains.Entities:
Keywords: Bloom’s taxonomy; OSPE; anatomy knowledge; anatomy teaching model; facial anatomy; instructional design; pre- and posttest
Year: 2018 PMID: 30574007 PMCID: PMC6292229 DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S181874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract ISSN: 1179-7258
Figure 1ADDAPT teaching steps.
Abbreviation: ADDAPT, Assess & Aware, Demonstrate, Decode, Act & Accomplish, Perform, Teach & Test.
Figure 2Students engagement in the small group where the table demonstrator is explaining the steps of the procedure.
ADDAPT rating scale
| Steps | Expert rater | Table demonstrator | Rating (0= strongly disagree, 10= strongly agree) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Content and pace are adequate to capture the attention of the participants | Content and pace are adequate to capture the attention of the participants | |
| D | • The LT is confident in demonstrating anatomy and procedural skills | The LT is confident in demonstrating anatomy and procedural skills | |
| D | • The procedural narration is clear, concise, and fluid | The procedural narration is clear, concise, and fluid | |
| A | • The participants repeated the steps without interruption | The participants repeated the steps without interruption | |
| P | Feedback provided to the participants is adequate and clear | Feedback provided to the participants is adequate and clear | |
| T | • Trainees were thoroughly engaged in peer teaching | • Trainees were thoroughly engaged in peer teaching |
Abbreviations: ADDAPT, Assess & Aware, Demonstrate, Decode, Act & Accomplish, Perform, Teach & Test; LT, lead tutor.
Paired-samples statistics
| Mean | N | SD | Standard error of the mean | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pair 1 | MCQ_pre | 17.3226 | 124 | 3.36058 | 0.30179 |
| MCQ_post | 22.7500 | 124 | 1.70425 | 0.15305 | |
| Pair 2 | OSPE_pre | 24.5323 | 124 | 4.63538 | 0.41627 |
| OSPE_post | 43.5726 | 124 | 5.35894 | 0.48125 | |
Abbreviations: MCQ, multiple choice question; OSPE, objective structured practical examination.
Paired-samples test
| Mean | SD | Paired differences | t | df | Significance (two-tailed) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error of the mean | 95% CI of the difference | |||||||
| Upper | Lower | |||||||
| Pair 1: MCQ_post–MCQ_pre | 5.42742 | 3.05551 | 0.27439 | 4.88428 | 5.97056 | 19.780 | 123 | 0.000 |
| Pair 2: OSPE_post–OSPE_pre | 19.04032 | 6.39664 | 0.57444 | 17.90326 | 20.17738 | 33.146 | 123 | 0.000 |
Abbreviations: MCQ, multiple choice question; OSPE, objective structured practical examination.
Figure 3MCQ pre- and posttest score.
Abbreviation: MCQ, multiple choice question.
Figure 4OSPE pre- and posttest score.
Abbreviation: OSPE, objective structured practical examination.
Reliability statistics among independent expert raters
| ICC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraclass correlation | 95% CI | Value | |||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | df1 | df2 | Significance | |||
| Single measures | 0.826 | 0.447 | 0.954 | 10.524 | 9 | 9 | 0.001 |
| Average measures | 0.905 | 0.617 | 0.976 | 10.524 | 9 | 9 | 0.001 |
Notes: Two-way mixed-effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.
Type C ICCs using a consistency definition. The between-measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance.
The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.
This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.
Abbreviation: ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.
Reliability statistics among table demonstrators
| ICC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraclass correlation | 95% CI | Value | |||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | df1 | df2 | Significance | |||
| Single measures | 0.452 | 0.239 | 0.752 | 10.073 | 9 | 90 | 0.000 |
| Average measures | 0.901 | 0.776 | 0.971 | 10.073 | 9 | 90 | 0.000 |
Notes: Two-way mixed-effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.
Type C ICCs using a consistency definition. The between-measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance.
The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.
This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.
Abbreviation: ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.
Figure 5Participants’ qualitative feedback.