Online learning versus workshops: a rank minimized trial comparing the effect of two knowledge translation strategies designed to alter knowledge, readiness to change, and self-efficacy with respect to rehabilitation outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional face-to-face learning is often replaced by virtual learning because it can be more feasible and cost-effective, and more recently due to the need for social distancing. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of two innovative knowledge translation (KT) interventions; in-person stakeholder-hosted, interactive, problem-based seminars (SHIPS) versus online problem-based tutorials (e-PBL) in changing knowledge, readiness to change, and self-efficacy with respect to the use of rehabilitation outcome measures. Physical and occupational therapists (<i>n</i> = 124) were recruited from four sites across Canada to participate in either an e-PBL or SHIPS. Evaluations of KT impact measured knowledge, self-efficacy to implement outcome measures in practice, and readiness to change. There were 112 participants who completed the study. Following the intervention, the mean knowledge scores for both groups improved, but there was greater improvement in participants who completed SHIPS. For self-efficacy and readiness to change, there was no significant difference between groups six months following the interventions. E-PBL was as good as a SHIPS for improving and retaining self-efficacy and readiness to change. Knowledge improved more with workshops than online delivery, while improvements in self-efficacy and readiness to change improved similarly regardless of delivery.Implications for RehabilitationThis study compared the relative efficacy of internet and workshop-based education, focusing specifically on the use of outcome measures in physical and occupational therapy practice.Improvements in the self-efficacy of rehabilitation professionals with respect to outcome measure use had lasting effects regardless of KT intervention type, as it was retained six months following the intervention.Results from this study show that online interventions may be as effective as face-to-face workshops for improving readiness to change and self-efficacy for using outcome measures in practice by rehabilitation professionals.This is valuable information given the recent global pandemic, the need for social distancing, and the potential for learning interventions to focus within the online environment in the future. This study compared the relative efficacy of internet and workshop-based education, focusing specifically on the use of outcome measures in physical and occupational therapy practice. Improvements in the self-efficacy of rehabilitation professionals with respect to outcome measure use had lasting effects regardless of KT intervention type, as it was retained six months following the intervention. Results from this study show that online interventions may be as effective as face-to-face workshops for improving readiness to change and self-efficacy for using outcome measures in practice by rehabilitation professionals. This is valuable information given the recent global pandemic, the need for social distancing, and the potential for learning interventions to focus within the online environment in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".