Reliability, usability, and efficiency of video versus print instructions to teach parents a procedural task: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability, usability, and efficiency of video versus print instructions to teach parents a procedural measurement task. We hypothesized that videos would outperform print in all outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This cross-sectional study included parents/caregivers of children aged 0-18 years with deep vein thrombosis attending the Thrombosis Clinic at The Hospital for Sick Children for post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) assessment. Participants were randomly assigned to three instruction types: (i) video, which followed the technique used by clinicians; (ii) long pamphlet, which also followed the clinicians' technique; and (iii) short pamphlet, which explained a simplified technique. After measuring their children's arms or legs using the randomly assigned material, participants completed a usability questionnaire. The reliability of the instructions was estimated by comparing parents/caregivers versus clinicians' measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Reliability, usability, and efficiency (time to task completion) were compared among the three instruction types. RESULTS: In total, 92 participants were randomized to video (n = 31), long pamphlet (n = 31), and short pamphlet (n = 30). While the video had the highest usability, the short pamphlet was the most reliable and efficient. ICCs were .17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .00-.39) for the video, .53 (95% CI: .30-.72) for the long pamphlet, and .70 (95% CI: .50-.81) for the short pamphlet. CONCLUSION: Although the video had higher usability, the short/simplified print instruction was more reliable and efficient. However, the reliability of the short pamphlet was only moderate/good, suggesting that whenever possible, measurements should still be obtained by trained clinicians.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".