Diminishing Effect Sizes with Repeated Exposure to Evidence-Based Practice Training in Entry-Level Health Professional Students: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the magnitude of change in outcomes after repeated exposure to evidence-based practice (EBP) training in entry-level health professional students. METHOD: Using an observational cross-sectional analytic design, the study tracked 78 students in physiotherapy, podiatry, health science, medical radiations, and human movement before and after two sequential EBP courses. The first EBP course was aimed at developing foundational knowledge of and skills in the five steps of EBP; the second was designed to teach students to apply these steps. Two EBP instruments were used to collect objective (actual knowledge) and self-reported (terminology, confidence, practice, relevance, sympathy) data. Participants completed both instruments before and after each course. RESULTS: Effect sizes were larger after the first course than after the second for relevance (0.72 and 0.26, respectively), practice (1.23 and 0.43), terminology (2.73 and 0.84), and actual knowledge (1.92 and 1.45); effect sizes were larger after the second course for sympathy (0.03 and 0.14) and confidence (0.81 and 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge and relevance changed most meaningfully (i.e., showed the largest effect size) for participants with minimal prior exposure to training. Changes in participants' confidence and attitudes may require a longer time frame and repeated training exposure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".