Beyond Effectiveness: A Pragmatic Evaluation Framework for Learning and Continuous Quality Improvement of e-Learning Interventions in Healthcare.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pragmatic evaluation framework for evaluating the usability and usefulness of an e-learning intervention for a patient clinical information scheduling system is presented in this paper. The framework was conceptualized based on two different but related concepts (usability and usefulness) and selection of appropriate and valid methods of data collection and analysis that included: (1) Low-Cost Rapid Usability Engineering (LCRUE), (2) Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA), (3) Heuristic Evaluation (HE) criteria for web-based learning, and (4) Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI). The results of the analysis showed some areas where usability that were related to General Interface Usability (GIU), instructional design and content was problematic; some of which might account for the poorly rated aspects of usability when subjectively measured. This paper shows that using a pragmatic framework can be a useful way, not only for measuring the usability and usefulness, but also for providing a practical objective evidences for learning and continuous quality improvement of e-learning systems. The findings should be of interest to educators, developers, designers, researchers, and usability practitioners involved in the development of e-learning systems in healthcare. This framework could be an appropriate method for assessing the usability, usefulness and safety of health information systems both in the laboratory and in the clinical context.
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 | 0.430 | 0.447 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".