Cited by 26Innovations in Medical EducationEmergency Medicine Education and ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences in procedural knowledge after a “spaced” and a “massed” version of an intensive course in emergency medicine, investigating a very short spacing interval

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Distributing a fixed amount of teaching hours over a longer time period (spaced approach) may result in better learning than delivering the same amount of teaching within a shorter time (massed approach). While a spaced approach may provide more opportunities to elaborate the learning content, a massed approach allows for more economical utilisation of teaching facilities and to optimise time resources of faculty. Favourable effects of spacing have been demonstrated for postgraduate surgery training and for spacing intervals of weeks to months. It is however unknown, whether a spacing effect can also be observed for shorter intervals and in undergraduate medical education. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effect of a short spacing intervention within an undergraduate intensive course in emergency medicine (EM) on students' procedural knowledge. METHODS: An EM intensive course of 26 teaching hours was delivered over either 4.5 days, or 3.0 days. After the course students' procedural knowledge was assessed by a specifically developed video-case based key-feature test (KF-test). RESULTS: Data sets of 156 students (81.7 %, 191 students eligible) were analysed, 54 from the spaced, and 102 from the massed version. In the KF-test students from the spaced version reached a mean of 14.8 (SD 2.0) out of 22 points, compared to 13.7 (SD 2.0) in the massed version (p = .002). Effect size was moderate (Cohen's d: 0.558). CONCLUSION: A significant spacing effect was observable even for a short spacing interval in undergraduate medical education. This effect was only moderate and may be weighed against planning needs of faculty and teaching resources.

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 · 10.1186/s12909-016-0770-6

Cites

7 of 7 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Bahrick HP. Long-term maintenance of knowledge. In: Tulving E, Craik FIM, editors. The Oxford handbook of memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 347–62. · DOI
  2. Cohen N, Pell L, Edelson MG, Ben-Yakov A, Pine A, Dudai Y. Peri-encoding predictors of memory encoding and consolidation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015;50:128–42. · DOI
  3. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. How people learn. Washington: National Academy Press; 2000.
  4. Paris SG, Byrnes JP, Paris AH. Constructing theories, identities, and actions of self-regulated learners. In: Zimmerman B, Schunk D, editors. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. New York: Springer; 2001. p. 253–87.
  5. Zimmerman BJ, Schunk D. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. New York: Springer; 2001.
  6. Shebilske WL, Goettl BP, Corrington K, Day EA. Inter-lesson spacing and task-related processing during complex skill acquisition. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1999;5:413–37. · DOI
  7. Stickgold R, Hobson JA, Fosse R, Fosse M. Sleep, learning, and dreams: Off-line memory reprocessing. Science. 2001;294:1052–7. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Mitchell EL, Lee DY, Sevdalis N, Partsafas AW, Landry GJ, Liem TK, Moneta GL. Evaluation of distributed practice schedules on retention of a newly acquired surgical skill: a randomized trial. Am J Surg. 2011;201:31–9. · DOI
  9. Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect? A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244:400–9. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Spruit EN, Band GP, Hamming JF. Increasing efficiency of surgical training: effects of spacing practice on skill acquisition and retention in laparoscopy training. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(8):2235–43. · DOI
  11. Patocka C, Khan F, Dubrovsky AS, Brody D, Bank I, Bhanji F. Pediatric resuscitation training-instruction all at once or spaced over time? Resuscitation. 2015;88:6–11. · DOI
  12. Fischer MR, Kopp V, Holzer M, Ruderich F, Jünger J. A modified electronic key feature examination for undergraduate medical students: Validation threats and opportunities. Med Teach. 2005;27:450–5. · DOI
  13. Hatala R, Norman G. Adapting the key features examination for a clinical clerkship. Med Educ. 2002;36:160–5. · DOI
  14. Kopp V, Möltner A, Fischer MR. Key-feature problems for the assessment of procedural knowledge: A practice guide. GMS Z Medizinische Ausbildung. 2006;23:Doc50.
  15. Page G, Bordage G, Allen T. Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med. 1995;70:194–201. · DOI
  16. Nolan JP, Soar J, Zideman DA, Biarent D, Bossaert LL, Deakin C, Koster RW, Wyllie J, Böttiger B, on behalf of the ERC Guidelines Writing Group. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010. Section 1. Executive summary. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1219–76. · DOI
  17. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.
  18. Benjamin AS, Tullis J. What makes distributed practice effective? Cogn Psychol. 2010;61:228–47. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Breckwoldt, J., Ludwig, J. R., Plener, J., Schröder, T., Gruber, H., & Peters, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Turku (FI)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Breckwoldt, Jan
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2016-09-26
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
249-249
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2526163671
Cited by
26
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency Medicine Education and Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
spacing effect, procedural knowledge, emergency medicine education, intensive course, video-based assessment, undergraduate medical students

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