Supporting Third Year Medical Students' Skill Acquisition and Self-Efficacy with Coping Models and Process Feedback during Laparoscopic Knot Tying Simulation
Background: During the third year general surgery clerkship, medical students are required to develop laparoscopic knot-tying skills. Knot-tying skills studies often rely on objective variables (e.g., time, materials used, number of iterations) that lend themselves to correlational analysis of pre- and post-intervention skill level. This study differs by examining how instructional interventions-role modeling and feedback-affect medical students' skill acquisition and self-efficacy during a laparoscopic surgical simulation training session. Methods: Seventy-eight surgical clerkship students were assigned randomly to one cell of a 2X2 factorial design. Participants observed one of two types of role modeling (expert vs. coping) and received either process-oriented or outcome-oriented feedback during a 30-min laparoscopic training session. Participants also completed several surveys that assessed their interest in surgery and their self-efficacy for laparoscopic knot tying. Results: Coping model groups tended to perform better on the knot tying task, though this was less the case in the presence of outcome feedback. Expert model groups slightly outperformed the coping model group on the peg transfer task, but in the presence of outcome feedback they reported the lowest satisfaction with their performance and the lowest self-efficacy for the knot tying task. The coping model combined with process feedback had a positive influence on students' efficiency in learning the task, on their satisfaction with their performance, and on their self-efficacy for laparoscopic knot typing. Conclusions: Results are discussed relative to self-regulated learning theory.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#8,196,110
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,693
of 34,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,534
of 320,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#264
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
