Evaluation of a Web-based Teaching Module on Examination of the Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an online module in the development of medical students' clinical hand examination skills. METHODS: We developed a Web-based module to teach examination of the hand to first-year medical students (n = 99) to address the core skills expected in undergraduate medical training in Canada. The module was compared to the standard recommended text and tutor-led teaching using a validated objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and a written knowledge test. RESULTS: A total of 17 students completed the OSCE from the book-based learning group, 18 from the tutor-led group, and 26 from the online module group. The average total OSCE score was significantly higher for students in the online module group compared to the textbook group (73.2% and 60.5%, respectively; p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between students in the online module and tutor-led groups (73.2% and 69.0%, respectively; p = 0.31). The online module group had a significantly higher mean total knowledge score than the textbook group (8.4 and 5.7, respectively; p < 0.001; maximum score 10) and the tutor-led group (8.4 and 7.4, respectively; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that a well designed Web-based module, supported by sound educational theory, is an effective tool in the teaching of musculoskeletal examination skills, and provides some advantages over tutor-led teaching in terms of knowledge retention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".