Esta página foi traduzida automaticamente e a precisão da tradução não é garantida. Por favor, consulte o versão em inglês para um texto fonte.

Computer-Assisted Instruction: Arterial Blood Gases (CAI)

14 de março de 2016 atualizado por: Phongthara Vichitvejpaisal", Mahidol University

Development and Assessment of On-line Computer-Assisted Instruction: Arterial Blood Gases

This research work develops a diagnostic and feedback-providing system for self-learning by volunteers who are asked to log in to a website to study the required subjects in three weeks.

The system establishes students' learning weaknesses and offered guidelines for their improvement until all such weaknesses are corrected.

Assessment is based on students' relative growth scores, and their record profiles.

Visão geral do estudo

Status

Desconhecido

Intervenção / Tratamento

Descrição detalhada

Website development: The www.nmac.in.th website contains the learning courseware database. The program is interactive, with personal files for each student along with other details like code, password, name, surname, date-month-year, test scores, and log-in periods and time.

Students can, on their own, plan their learning for each subject; they are free to record and copy the articles on the website. There is no log-in limit from any place with internet connection around the clock.

Learning courseware: We developed a set of learning courseware of the specified topics as activities and diagnostic tests for arterial blood gases (ABGs).

The activities covered topics under the table of specification, whereas the diagnostic tests probed the weaknesses of students' understanding of activities so as to assess their learning skills in analytical thinking of patients' problems under assorted circumstances to be faced in clinical practice.

Each set of courseware contained three levels: beginner, intermediate, and advanced.

Students are required to pass each in an orderly way, at least once with a minimum score of 80% before advancing to the next level.

Once they have passed certain courseware, they are free to review all learning courseware as often as they wanted to.

Learning sources: Interactive with students, the program identifies learning weaknesses while avoiding giving them direct answers immediately after each test.

What it does is instead to link the student to begin a search for the well-prepared content, which contains details of the subject.

Construction of test forms: Pre-test and post-test forms are designed to be parallel under the table of specification, thus preventing the carry-over effect by testing them three weeks afterward and alternating the questions or changing them.

The tests underwent verification for content validity and had their index of item objective congruence (IOC) determined by four clinical experts.

Deciding whether the tests and behavioral objectives aligned, they set the IOCs at 0.79 for pre-tests and 0.73 for post-tests.

  • Two sets of pre-tests and post-tests of 10 questions each, with each question containing four sub-items requiring short answers
  • 15 activities and 10 diagnostic tests of the multiple-choice (4) questions

System testing: We introduced the elements, namely the learning courseware, tests, and sources of learning, to the developed system before testing it under the research and development approach, the logical approach, and empirical approach.

Different sample sizes were used, and logical comments were analyzed to test the system efficiency under three stages:

First-stage system development and assessment:

  • The sample group was 4 sixth year medical students who underwent system testing during a three-week period
  • Objectives:
  • To test system operating units and system log-ins
  • To test the objectivity of the tools
  • Findings:
  • The system operating units were flexible to students' interactive behavior, instruction responsiveness, and network connection. Access to the system through the website provided ready access to the information, was user-friendly, and was stable.
  • The tools were objective, covered complete details, and were clear, with elements of the subject content in proper order.
  • Improvement:
  • Making the system interactive with the network; focusing on conciseness; adding channels for answering questionnaires through the website; adding the record on downloading articles from the website; notifying students of their performance on the tests, question by question; and enabling the website to accommodate no less than 100 concurrent users.
  • Adjustment of fonts to match general personal-computer sets and updating the wording of the questions to be more relevant with the circumstances of patients.

Second-stage system development and assessment:

  • The sample group was 32 nurse anesthetist students and 21 first year residents in anesthesiology who underwent system testing during a three-week period.
  • Objectives
  • To test criterion-referenced tool quality
  • To determine learning achievement
  • Findings:
  • The pre-test and post-test registered 0.48 and 0.50 in item difficulty (p) values; 0.72 and 0.73 in sensitivity indices (s); 0.85 and 0.88 in content validity; concurrent validity through calculation of Pearson Product moment against a standard test of 0.82; and 0.91 reliability for the internal consistency by the Kuder-Richardson method 20.
  • The diagnostic tests registered 0.87, 0.91, 0.87 and 0.93, 0.93, 0.86 in item difficulty (p) values; 0.17, 0.11, 0.20 and 0.15, 0.08, 0.21 in sensitivity indices; 0.89, 0.80, 0.95 in content validity; and 0.85, 0.66, 0.95 and 0.91, 0.77, 0.88 reliability for the internal consistency.
  • Learning achievement:
  • The post-test scores with a full mark of 40, were significantly higher than pre-test scores: 4.52 ± 3.04 against 23.90 ± 7.69 among the nurse student group and 7.60 ± 5.69 and 26.96 ± 7.47 among the resident group.
  • Improvement: We chose quality test questions and introduced 'distracters' most often picked by respondents in each pre-test and post-test in developing the tests for our target group.

Third-stage development and assessment: Consisting in a trial application on the target preclinical 3rd year medical students and nurses in critical care unit throughout the country who volunteer to join the study. They are asked to log in to a website to study the required subjects in three weeks. Students' profiles are periodically updated.

Tipo de estudo

Intervencional

Inscrição (Antecipado)

1000

Estágio

  • Não aplicável

Critérios de participação

Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Idades elegíveis para estudo

  • Filho
  • Adulto
  • Adulto mais velho

Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis

Sim

Gêneros Elegíveis para o Estudo

Tudo

Descrição

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 3rd year medical students
  • Nurses in Critical care unit

Exclusion Criteria:

  • non-volunteer

Plano de estudo

Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.

Como o estudo é projetado?

Detalhes do projeto

  • Alocação: Não randomizado
  • Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição Paralela
  • Mascaramento: Nenhum (rótulo aberto)

Armas e Intervenções

Grupo de Participantes / Braço
Intervenção / Tratamento
Experimental: 3th year medical students
pretest and post-test scores are calculated for relative growth scores
Outros nomes:
  • relative growth scores
Experimental: nurses in critical care units
pretest and post-test scores are calculated for relative growth scores
Outros nomes:
  • relative growth scores

O que o estudo está medindo?

Medidas de resultados primários

Medida de resultado
Prazo
Number of Participants with Learning Achievement as a Measure of Relative Growth Scores.
Prazo: 1 year
1 year

Medidas de resultados secundários

Medida de resultado
Prazo
Scores on the Web Record Profiles.
Prazo: 1 year
1 year

Colaboradores e Investigadores

É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.

Patrocinador

Datas de registro do estudo

Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados ​​pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.

Datas Principais do Estudo

Início do estudo

1 de junho de 2011

Conclusão Primária (Real)

1 de outubro de 2015

Conclusão do estudo (Antecipado)

1 de abril de 2016

Datas de inscrição no estudo

Enviado pela primeira vez

19 de abril de 2012

Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ

25 de junho de 2012

Primeira postagem (Estimativa)

26 de junho de 2012

Atualizações de registro de estudo

Última Atualização Postada (Estimativa)

16 de março de 2016

Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade

14 de março de 2016

Última verificação

1 de março de 2016

Mais Informações

Termos relacionados a este estudo

Outros números de identificação do estudo

  • 029/2554(EC1)

Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .

Se inscrever