OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of real-time, objective feedback on learning lumbar spine joint mobilization techniques by entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, crossover design was used. Twenty-four 1st Year DPT students were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 12) practiced with the real-time feedback device first and then without it, while Group 2 (n = 12) practiced without the device first and then with it. Both practice periods with and without the device were 4 weeks long. Data were collected at Baseline, 5 weeks, 11 weeks, and 16 weeks. The crossover period was 5 weeks long, during which neither group practiced with or without the device. Eight force parameters were measured: R1 force; R2 force; Grade III and Grade IV mean peak force, frequency, and amplitude. RESULTS: When students practiced with the real-time feedback device, they more closely matched the reference standard for two outcomes: 1) the mean difference in R2 force between student and reference standard was better with device (38.0 ± 26.7 N) than without it (51.0 ± 38.5 N); P = .013; and 2) the mean difference in Grade III peak to peak amplitude force was also better with device (8.9 ± 9.3 N) than without it (11.8 ± 11.0); P = .026. All other force parameters improved when students practiced with the real-time feedback device, however, the differences between when they practiced without the device were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Real-time, objective feedback using a direct force measurement device improved learning for some aspects of lumbar spine joint mobilization by entry-level physical therapy students. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of real-time, objective feedback on learning lumbar spine joint mobilization techniques by entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, crossover design was used. Twenty-four 1st Year DPT students were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 12) practiced with the real-time feedback device first and then without it, while Group 2 (n = 12) practiced without the device first and then with it. Both practice periods with and without the device were 4 weeks long. Data were collected at Baseline, 5 weeks, 11 weeks, and 16 weeks. The crossover period was 5 weeks long, during which neither group practiced with or without the device. Eight force parameters were measured: R1 force; R2 force; Grade III and Grade IV mean peak force, frequency, and amplitude. RESULTS: When students practiced with the real-time feedback device, they more closely matched the reference standard for two outcomes: 1) the mean difference in R2 force between student and reference standard was better with device (38.0 ± 26.7 N) than without it (51.0 ± 38.5 N); P = .013; and 2) the mean difference in Grade III peak to peak amplitude force was also better with device (8.9 ± 9.3 N) than without it (11.8 ± 11.0); P = .026. All other force parameters improved when students practiced with the real-time feedback device, however, the differences between when they practiced without the device were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Real-time, objective feedback using a direct force measurement device improved learning for some aspects of lumbar spine joint mobilization by entry-level physical therapy students. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
Authors: Marie-Andrée Mercier; Philippe Rousseau; Martha Funabashi; Martin Descarreaux; Isabelle Pagé Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2021-10-29