MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Equivalence Trial Comparing Instructor-Regulated With Directed Self-Regulated Mastery Learning of Advanced Cardiac Life Support Skills

2015· article· en· W906880682 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingChecklistPsychological interventionAdvanced cardiac life supportMastery learningMedical educationIntervention (counseling)Test (biology)Randomized controlled trialPsychologyMedicineNursingMathematics educationCardiopulmonary resuscitationEmergency medicineInternal medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Instructor-led simulation-based mastery learning of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) skills is an effective and focused approach to competency-based education. Directed self-regulated learning (DSRL) may be an effective and less resource-intensive way to teach ACLS skills. METHODS: Forty first-year internal medicine residents were randomized to either simulation-based DSRL or simulation-based instructor-regulated learning (IRL) of ACLS skills using a mastery learning model. Residents in each intervention completed pretest, posttest, and retention test of their performance in leading an ACLS response to a simulated scenario. Performance tests were assessed using a standardized checklist. Residents in the DSRL intervention were provided assessment instruments, a debriefing guide, and scenario-specific teaching points, and they were permitted to access relevant online resources. Residents in the IRL intervention had access to the same materials; however, the teaching and debriefing were instructor led. RESULTS: Skills of both the IRL and DSRL interventions showed significant improvement after the intervention, with an average improvement on the posttest of 21.7%. After controlling for pretest score, there was no difference between intervention arms on the posttest [F(1,37) = 0.02, P = 0.94] and retention tests [F(1,17) = 1.43, P = 0.25]. Cost savings were realized in the DSRL intervention after the fourth group (16 residents) had completed each intervention, with an ongoing savings of $80 per resident. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation-based mastery learning model, we observed equivalence in learning of ACLS skills for the DSRL and IRL conditions, whereas DSRL was more cost effective.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.330 · 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