Skip to main content

Table 5 Evaluation

From: Peyton’s four-step approach for teaching complex spinal manipulation techniques – a prospective randomized trial

Evaluation Item

Peyton Group

Control Group

Between Subject Factor Intervention

Between Subject Factor Gender

Women

Men

Women

Men

F(1,19)

p

F(1,19)

p

Cervical spine and thoracic spine (6-point grading scale)

 Indications/contraindications

2.4 ± 1.3

2.1 ± 0.4

1.8 ± 0.4

2

1.35

0.26

0.02

0.9

 Mobilisation/Manipulation

2.3 ± 0.9

1.9 ± 0.7

2.4 ± 1.1

2.25 ± 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.4

 3-step-diagnosis

1.9 ± 0.9

1.7 ± 0.7

1.8 ± 1.3

2

0.1

0.8

0.01

0.9

 Hand placement

2.1 ± 1.1

2.1 ± 0.4

2.6 ± 0.9

2.25 ± 0.5

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.6

 3-step-diagnosis cervical&thoracic spine

1.9 ± 0.9

2.1 ± 0.7

2.4 ± 1.1

2

0.3

0.6

0.03

0.9

 Traction-manipulation of the cervical spine

2.3 ± 0.5

2.1 ± 0.7

2.2 ± 0.4

2.3 ± 0.5

<0.001

0.9

0.04

0.8

 Rotation-traction technique, cervical spine

2 ± 0.6

2 ± 0.6

2.4 ± 1.1

2

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.5

 Cross-hand technique, thoracic spine

2 ± 0.8

1.9 ± 0.7

2.2 ± 0.8

2

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

Cervical spine and thoracic spine (5-point Likert scale)

 The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject

1.1 ± 0.4

1.7 ± 0.5

1.2 ± 0.4

1.3 ± 0.5

1.1

0.3

2.6

0.1

 The instructor-learner interaction was positive

1.4 ± 0.5

1.6 ± 0.8

1.6 ± 0.5

1.5 ± 0.6

0.03

0.9

0.01

0.9

 The instructor answered my questions to my satisfaction

2 ± 1

2.1 ± 0.7

2.8 ± 0.8

1.5 ± 0.6

0.1

0.8

2.7

0.1

 I enjoyed the course

1.6 ± 0.8

1.6 ± 0.5

1.6 ± 0.5

1.5 ± 0.6

0.01

0.9

0.03

0.9

 In this course I learned a great deal

1.9 ± 0.9

1.9 ± 1.1

3.2 ± 0.8

2.25 ± 0.5

5.1

0.04*

1.5

0.2

 I feel confident to apply the practiced techniques to real patients

3.3 ± 1.3

3.4 ± 1.5

4.2 ± 0.8

3.8 ± 1.5

1.2

0.3

0.07

0.8

 The course provided an appropriate balance between instruction and practice

2.1 ± 1

2.3 ± 0.8

2 ± 0.7

2.3 ± 0.5

0.06

0.8

0.3

0.6

 I would have rather been trained in the other group

4.3 ± 0.8

5

2.8 ± 1.3

4.5 ± 1

7.7

0.01*

11.4

0.003*

 It would require more training to become proficient

1.6 ± 0.8

2.4 ± 1.6

1.4 ± 0.5

2.5 ± 1.7

0.01

0.9

3.3

0.08

 The size of the class was appropriate

2.7 ± 1.1

2.4 ± 0.9

2.8 ± 1.6

1.8 ± 0.5

0.4

0.5

1.9

0.2

Lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint (6-point grading scale)

 Indications/contraindications

2.6 ± 0.5

2.3 ± 0.5

2.2 ± 0.4

2.5 ± 0.6

0.1

0.7

0.001

0.9

 Mobilisation/manipulation

2 ± 0.8

2 ± 0.6

2.8 ± 0.8

3.3 ± 0.5

11.4

0.003*

0.5

0.5

 3-step-diagnosis

2 ± 0.8

2 ± 0.6

2 ± 1.2

2.5 ± 1.3

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.5

 Hand placement

2 ± 0.6

2.1 ± 0.4

2.8 ± 0.8

2.8 ± 0.9

6.1

0.02*

0.02

0.8

 3-step-diagnosis lumbar spine

1.9 ± 0.7

2 ± 0.8

2.2 ± 1.1

2.3 ± 0.5

0.7

0.4

0.1

0.8

 Rotation manipulation, lumbar spine

2.1 ± 1.1

2 ± 0.6

2.2 ± 1.1

2.5 ± 0.6

0.5

0.5

0.04

0.8

 Counter-Rotation manipulation, lumbar spine

2.6 ± 0.8

2.6 ± 0.8

2.4 ± 0.9

2.8 ± 0.9

9.8

0.9

0.2

0.6

 3-step-diagnosis sacroiliac joint

2 ± 0.8

2.1 ± 0.7

3 ± 1.2

2.8 ± 0.5

4.9

0.04*

0.02

0.8

 Manipulation of the os ilium (sideways position)

2.6 ± 0.8

3 ± 1.2

2.8 ± 0.8

2.3 ± 0.9

0.4

0.5

0.02

0.9

 “Panther’s-jump” technique

1.4 ± 0.5

1.9 ± 0.4

2 ± 0.7

2.5 ± 0.6

6.8

0.02*

3.9

0.06

Lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint (5-point Likert scale)

 The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject

1.4 ± 0.5

1.6 ± 0.5

1.4 ± 0.5

1.5 ± 0.6

0.05

0.83

0.3

0.6

 The instructor-learner interaction was positive

1.3 ± 0.5

1.7 ± 0.8

1.8 ± 0.4

2 ± 0.8

2.2

0.16

1.3

0.3

 The instructor answered my questions to my satisfaction

1.6 ± 0.9

2 ± 1

3 ± 1.2

2

2.9

0.1

0.5

0.5

 I enjoyed the course

1.6 ± 0.8

1.4 ± 0.5

2 ± 1

1.8 ± 0.5

1.4

0.2

0.4

0.5

 In this course I learned a great deal

2 ± 0.8

2.1 ± 1.3

3.4 ± 1.1

3 ± 1.4

5

0.04*

0.1

0.8

 I feel confident to apply the practiced techniques to real patients

3.7 ± 0.8

3.4 ± 1.5

4.4 ± 0.5

3.5 ± 1.3

0.6

0.4

1.6

0.2

 The course provided an appropriate balance between instruction and practice

1.9 ± 0.9

2.1 ± 0.7

2.6 ± 0.5

2.8 ± 0.9

4

0.05

0.4

0.5

 I would have rather been trained in the other group

4.3 ± 0.9

5

2.8 ± 1.3

4 ± 1.4

8.8

0.008*

5.2

0.03*

 It would require more training to become proficient

1.4 ± 0.5

2.3 ± 1.7

1.4 ± 0.5

1.5 ± 0.6

0.8

0.4

1.1

0.3

 The size of the class was appropriate

2.1 ± 1.1

2.3 ± 0.9

3 ± 1

1.8 ± 0.5

0.2

0.7

1.9

0.2

  1. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation, *indicating significance
  2. 6-point grading scale, 1 = very good, 6 = insufficient; 5-point Likert scale, 1 = fully agree, 5 = strongly disagree
Back to article page

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us