Randomized Trial Comparing Instructor-Delivered Feedback with Self-Assessment Using Video during Basic Skills Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback has been shown to be one of the most powerful and effective influences on student achievement; however, the optimal method for providing feedback to trainees during veterinary skills training has yet to be determined. A prospective mixed-methods study was undertaken to evaluate student perceptions and performance outcomes with self-assessment using video- or instructor-delivered feedback during skills training using a model. Forty participants naïve to intravenous (IV) catheter placement were randomly assigned either to self-assessment using video or to instructor-directed feedback. A questionnaire probing participants’ perceptions of their knowledge level and confidence in their skills was completed before and after the training, and an interview was done at study completion. Final skill performance was recorded using video capture to permit blind evaluations using a standard assessment tool. A quantitative evaluation of the performance and questionnaire scores, as well as a qualitative assessment of the interviews, was performed. Questionnaire scores were significantly higher in the post-study questionnaire for 12 of the 14 questions in both groups. Students assigned to the instructor-directed group had significantly higher scores than students in the self-directed group on the skill performance ( p < .05). Self-reported confidence in knowledge and skill related to the IV catheterization technique improved with both self-directed feedback using video and instructor-directed feedback. Skill performance, however, was superior following instructor-directed feedback. Participants expressed positive experiences associated with use of the models for skills training, the value of the learning materials including the video, and guidance during learning.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".