A summative assessment of theoretical and practical competencies in BLS-AED-An empirical research methodology to obtain quantitative results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: The evaluation in basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillator (AED) training courses is mostly formative. The objective of the study was to evaluate a quantitative assessment with an established cut-off level of 7 out of 10.Methods: The course was designed in accordance with the European Resuscitation Council (ERC). For the evaluation a high-fidelity manikin was available (Laerdal® Resusci Anne QCPR). A multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) was used to test knowledge, and the practical skills with a high-fidelity manikin.Results: About 68.2% and 34.1% obtained a score greater than 7 in knowledge and skills as evaluated by the nurse educator, immediately after the training. When the skills illustrated by the manikin were included, the results fell to 11.4% and 2.3%, respectively.Conclusions: A summative assessment of theoretical and practical competencies with a cut-off level of 7 demonstrates that global competency in BLS-AED is not achieved and some other strategies should be introduced in the current courses.
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 | 0.067 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".