MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211182454 · doi:10.1097/jte.0000000000000221

Virtual Reality Instructional Design in Orthopedic Physical Therapy Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4211182454 on OpenAlex
Aaron Hartstein, Kory Zimney, Margaret Verkuyl, Jean Yockey, Patti Berg‐Poppe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Therapy Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychomotor learningRandomized controlled trialExperiential learningPsychologyVirtual realityPhysical therapyMedicineCognitionComputer sciencePedagogyArtificial intelligenceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Effective clinical decision-making (CDM) skills are essential for physical therapist practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of virtual reality (VR) patient simulation with those of a traditional standardized patient simulation on the CDM of student physical therapists (SPTs). Review of Literature. Authentic experiential learning opportunities are needed to promote CDM. The effects of VR simulation on the CDM of SPTs are unknown. Subjects. Fifty-nine first-year SPTs participated in this study. Methods. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of VR with those of standardized patient simulation on several aspects of CDM in 59 first-year students after an upper extremity orthopedic unit. Perceived CDM abilities and metacognitive awareness were assessed before and after allocated instruction. Diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic efficiency were measured during instruction. Student engagement was assessed immediately after instruction and psychomotor skill was assessed 1 week later. Results. Statistically significant within-group differences in CDM were noted after both VR and standardized patient instruction, but no between-group differences were found. Although effect sizes were considered large with either learning experience, the observed experimental effect was greater after a VR experience. No between-group differences were found between metacognitive awareness, diagnostic accuracy, or psychomotor skill assessment. Diagnostic efficiency was statistically significantly greater in the standardized patient condition, while engagement was significantly greater in the VR condition. Discussion and Conclusion. Measures of perceived CDM improved regardless of instructional method; however, the effect size was greater after VR. These findings reveal 2 effective experiential learning options to promote CDM. These results exemplify the normative trajectory of CDM development and recommendations for differentiated curricular instruction. Although resource intensive initially, VR technology appears capable of advancing CDM skills in an efficient manner that may minimize future cost and the faculty facilitation associated with standardized patient instruction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it