438 Does a peer to peer learning technology integrated workshop facilitate neuromuscular training injury prevention program coach learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Workshops are used to educate coaches on Neuromuscular Training (NMT) warm-ups to reduce the risk of youth sport injury. Currently, there is no research assessing different learning strategies and its influence on coaches’ self-efficacy and knowledge after attending a workshop. Objective To evaluate whether a peer-to-peer (P2P) learning technology integrated workshop, improved coaches’ self-efficacy and ability to identify NMT exercise errors compared to a standard workshop. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Youth soccer clubs in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Participants Eighty-five recreational youth soccer coaches. Intervention Coaches within each club randomly attended one of two workshops offered to learn a NMT warm-up: the intervention workshop (technology-integrated instruction), or control workshop (standard instruction). Main Outcome Measures At the end of the workshop, the soccer NMT warm-up exercise test, a video-based test where coaches identify common NMT exercise errors, was completed. At the beginning and end of the workshop, the soccer NMT warm-up self-efficacy scale was completed to assess coaches’ self-efficacy change in their ability to identify NMT exercises errors on a 7-point Likert scale. Results Mean NMT warm-up exercise test scores were 72% (SD: 13%) for the control and 71% (SD: 13%) for the intervention workshop. Mean change in NMT warm-up self-efficacy scores were 0.98 (SD: 1.33) for the control and 1.77 (SD: 1.19) for the intervention workshop. Multivariable linear regression analyses indicated that workshop delivery method was not associated with the exercise test score (b= - 3.45, 95% CI: -10.80 to 3.91, R2=0.13) but was associated with a greater difference in change of self-efficacy scores for the intervention workshop (b= 0.97, 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.89, R2=0.13). Conclusions A P2P learning technology integrated instructional workshop did not differentially impact coaches’ ability to identify exercise errors, but it did increase coaches’ self-efficacy in identifying exercise errors compared to a standard workshop.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".