Evaluating the Stages of Veterinary Practitioner Learning for Continuing Education Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY: Recent behavioral change theory suggests that individuals go through stages of readiness for change. This theory has been applied to continuing medical education as a four stage theory of physician learning. The purpose of this project was to test a method that used the four-stage learning theory to evaluate differences between continuing veterinary medical education (CVME) program attendees and non-attendees and to evaluate movement from one stage to another after a continuing education activity. METHODS: A survey using eight clinical scenarios was used to elucidate the stage of learning of dairy practitioner participants before and after a CVME course and of non-participating dairy practitioners. Differences in response rates before and after the course and between participants and non-participants were analyzed using chi-square contingency table analysis. RESULTS: Responses to six of the eight scenarios were different between participants and non-participants (p < 0.10). Attendees were more likely to report needing to update to solve the specific problems. Depending on the scenario, participants changed their responses after completing the continuing education course (range 31-81% change). CONCLUSIONS: The four stage theory of learning can be used for continuing education needs assessment, for understanding program participation, and for program evaluation. A continuing education activity can move practitioners from one stage of learning to another.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".