Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mastery Learning for Health Professionals Using Technology-Enhanced Simulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cook, David A., Brydges, Ryan, Zendejas, Benjamin, Hamstra, Stanley J., Hatala, Rose·2013·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Competency-based education requires individualization of instruction. Mastery learning, an instructional approach requiring learners to achieve a defined proficiency before proceeding to the next instructional objective, offers one approach to individualization. The authors sought to summarize the quantitative outcomes of mastery learning simulation-based medical education (SBME) in comparison with no intervention and nonmastery instruction, and to determine what features of mastery SBME make it effective. METHOD: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. They included original research in any language evaluating mastery SBME, in comparison with any intervention or no intervention, for practicing and student physicians, nurses, and other health professionals. Working in duplicate, they abstracted information on trainees, instructional design (interactivity, feedback, repetitions, and learning time), study design, and outcomes. RESULTS: They identified 82 studies evaluating mastery SBME. In comparison with no intervention, mastery SBME was associated with large effects on skills (41 studies; effect size [ES] 1.29 [95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.50]) and moderate effects on patient outcomes (11 studies; ES 0.73 [95% CI, 0.36-1.10]). In comparison with nonmastery SBME instruction, mastery learning was associated with large benefit in skills (3 studies; effect size 1.17 [95% CI, 0.29-2.05]) but required more time. Pretraining and additional practice improved outcomes but, again, took longer. Studies exploring enhanced feedback and self-regulated learning in the mastery model showed mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that mastery learning SBME is superior to nonmastery instruction but takes more time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31829a365d

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., & Hatala, R.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2013-08
Volume
88
Issue
8
Pages
1178-1186
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170323958
Cited by
369
References
6
FWCI
13.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.