Cited by 74Innovations in Medical EducationMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Investigating the efficacy of practical skill teaching: a pilot-study comparing three educational methods

Maloney, Stephen, Storr, Michael, Paynter, Sophie, Morgan, Prue, Ilic, Dragan·2013·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Effective education of practical skills can alter clinician behaviour, positively influence patient outcomes, and reduce the risk of patient harm. This study compares the efficacy of two innovative practical skill teaching methods, against a traditional teaching method. Year three pre-clinical physiotherapy students consented to participate in a randomised controlled trial, with concealed allocation and blinded participants and outcome assessment. Each of the three randomly allocated groups were exposed to a different practical skills teaching method (traditional, pre-recorded video tutorial or student self-video) for two specific practical skills during the semester. Clinical performance was assessed using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The students were also administered a questionnaire to gain the participants level of satisfaction with the teaching method, and their perceptions of the teaching methods educational value. There were no significant differences in clinical performance between the three practical skill teaching methods as measured in the OSCE, or for student ratings of satisfaction. A significant difference existed between the methods for the student ratings of perceived educational value, with the teaching approaches of pre-recorded video tutorial and student self-video being rated higher than 'traditional' live tutoring. Alternative teaching methods to traditional live tutoring can produce equivalent learning outcomes when applied to the practical skill development of undergraduate health professional students. The use of alternative practical skill teaching methods may allow for greater flexibility for both staff and infrastructure resource allocation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-012-9355-2

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maloney, S., Storr, M., Paynter, S., Morgan, P., & Ilic, D.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Maloney, Stephen
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2012-02-22
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
71-80
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2059104185
Cited by
74
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5
FWCI
4.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
physiotherapy education, clinical performance, OSCE, student satisfaction, perceived educational value, alternative teaching methods
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Humans, Pilot Projects, Students, Health Occupations, Teaching, Victoria, Physical Therapy Specialty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review