Effect of Instructional Format on Veterinary Students’ Task Performance and Emotional State during a Simulation-Based Canine Endotracheal Intubation Laboratory: Handout versus Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video- versus handout-based instructions may influence student outcomes during simulation training and competency-based assessments. Forty-five third-year veterinary students voluntarily participated in a simulation module on canine endotracheal intubation. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigated the impact of video ( n = 23) versus handout ( n = 22) instructions on student confidence, anxiety, and task performance. Students self-scored their confidence and anxiety before and after the simulation. During the simulation laboratory, three raters independently evaluated student performance using a 20-item formal assessment tool with a 5-point global rating scale. No significant between- or within-group differences ( p > .05) were found for both confidence and anxiety scores. Video-based instructions were associated with significantly higher ( p < .05) total formal assessment scores compared with handout-based instructions. The video group had significantly higher scores than the handout group on 3 of the 20 individual skills (items) assessed: placement of tie to the adaptor–endotracheal tube complex ( p < .05), using the anesthetic machine ( p < .01), and pop-off valve management ( p < .001). Inter-rater reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s α (.92), and Kendall’s W (.89) was excellent and almost perfect, respectively. A two-faceted crossed-design generalizability analysis yielded G coefficients for both the handout ( Ep2 = .68) and the video ( Ep2 = .72) groups. Video instructions may be associated with higher performance scores than handout instructions during endotracheal intubation simulation training. Further research into skill retention and learning styles is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".