MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514212231 · doi:10.18438/b81p4g

Interactive, Web-based Information Skills Tutorial Well Received by Graduate Students in Health and Social Care Research

2007· article· en· W1514212231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcy L. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricSession (web analytics)Medical educationChecklistMEDLINECourseworkComputer scienceInformation literacyPsychological interventionPsychologyMedicineMathematics educationNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To determine whether a newly developed interactive, Web-based tutorial on OVID MEDLINE was acceptable to students, and to identify whether the tutorial improved students’ information skills. Design – Objective and subjective assessment within a small cohort study. Setting – An evidence based practice module within a Master's in Research (MRes) program at the University of Salford, UK. Subjects – A total of 13 usable evaluations were received from graduate students who took an evidence based practice module as part of their MRes coursework. Methods – Information skills (IS) were taught in weeks two and three of a 12-week module on evidence based practice. Each of the two IS sessions lasted approximately three hours. At the beginning of the first session, baseline skills were assessed by asking the students to perform a literature search on either the effectiveness of nursing interventions for smoking cessation, or the effectiveness of rehabilitation after stroke. The OVID MEDLINE tutorial was introduced at the first session, and guided hands-on practice was offered. Homework was given, and between-session use of the tutorial was encouraged. At the end of the second session, students were asked to complete another search in order to assess short-term impact of the tutorial. Both sets of search results were scored using a checklist rubric that looked for Boolean operators, use of MeSH terms, use of limits, number and relevance of references, and other assessment criteria. The rubric was a modified version of a tool published by Rosenberg et al. The tutorial remained available throughout the 12-week module, at which time a systematic literature review was assigned in order to measure longer-term impact. As an additional subjective measurement, a questionnaire regarding the information skills sessions and tutorial was given at the end of the second IS session (week 3). Main Results – Thirteen objective assessments (literature search results) were returned and usable. According to the scored pre-training search, two students could use multiple search techniques correctly and in a systematic manner. The post-training search results indicated that six students could systematically search, which is triple the original number. At the end of the 12-week EBP module, that number had increased to seven students. This demonstrated a significant difference between pre-training and post-training scores (P = 0.040), as well as a significant difference between post-training and post-module scores (P = 0.008). Eight of the subjective questionnaires, which measured perceptions on a five-point scale, were returned. All responses indicated that “the sessions were useful, well structured and interesting” (83). Seven of the eight were entirely positive, either agreeing or strongly agreeing with each of the eleven questions about things such as search skill improvement, information skills knowledge, and confidence in searching. The small sample size made it difficult to generalise these results. Ad hoc comments varied and sometimes contradicted each other, such as one request for simpler tutorial instructions in contrast with the comment that the “tutorial ‘couldn’t be simpler’” (84). Conclusions – Students rated the IS sessions positively, including the Web-based MEDLINE tutorial. Search skills improved, as was demonstrated by comparing pre-training search results with post-training and end-of-module searches. Continuing feedback indicates that the tutorial is used within other departments and programs as a standalone tutorial.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207