Manikin-Based Clinical Simulation in Chiropractic Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot investigation was to describe the development and implementation of simulation exercises and investigate the feasibility, satisfaction, and relative effectiveness of a manikin-based simulation program in chiropractic undergraduate education. METHODS: This investigation consisted of (1) a qualitative review of other simulation environments and evaluation of related simulation literature to develop the educational processes to be used, (2) implementation of simulation scenarios for 95 student interns and their 11 supervising clinicians, and (3) implementation of simulation scenarios in a random sample of 35 1st-year and 24 2nd-year chiropractic students. Assessment of success was based on results from satisfaction and usability questionnaires and perceived achievement of learning outcomes. Anxiety scores were measured for all participants via a visual analog scale. The level of successful integration of 2nd-year basic science material was assessed using a t test comparing test results between students who participated in the pilot and those who did not. RESULTS: Implementation methods were developed on the basis of qualitative investigation. Simulation program feedback from all participants indicated high levels of satisfaction, usability, and perceived achievement of learning outcomes. Anxiety levels among interns differed according to role chosen (F = 8.07, p =.00). Mean difference in course examination scores of students who participated in simulations versus those who did not was 3.25% favoring students who participated (t = 1.28, p =.10). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of student satisfaction and perceived achievement of learning outcomes were consistently achieved. A trend to successful integration of basic science knowledge provides reason for cautious optimism. More research is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".