Skip to main content

Table 2 Item-based analysis of the examination results between the video-based ‘4-step Approach’ group (4SA) and the ‘See One, Do One’ (SODO) group at T1 and T2. Significant differences in favour of the video-based ‘4-step Approach’ group could be found in the subgroups ‘neurological examination’, ‘midface examination’ and ‘intraoral examination’. Shown in the table are the means in percent, the standard deviation (±) in percent and the confidence interval (CI)

From: Comparing video-based versions of Halsted’s ‘see one, do one’ and Peyton’s ‘4-step approach’ for teaching surgical skills: a randomized controlled trial

 Extraoral ExaminationNeurological ExaminationMidface ExaminationIntraoral Examination
4SAExaminer 1 (post-training)32.2% (± 41.0%; CI = 20.0–43.9)89.1% (± 12.3%; CI = 85.4–92.5)87.0% (± 11.6%; CI = 83.6–90.3)63.9% (± 10.6%; CI = 59.9–66.1)
Examiner 2 (post-training)35.6% (± 45.6%; CI = 21.6–48.3)94.2% (± 16.7%; CI = 89.1–98.8)86.3% (± 11.2%; CI = 82.7–89.2)67.2% (± 11.3%; CI = 63.7–70.3)
retention75.0% (± 25.0%; CI = 67.7–82.3)91.0% (± 14.9%; CI = 86.6–95.3)77.9% (± 19.5%; CI = 71.3–82.7)81.3% (± 19.1%; CI = 75.4–86.5)
SODOExaminer 1 (post-training)24.6% (± 36.4%; CI = 14.5–33.4)81.6% (± 15.2%; CI = 77.0–84.9)71.6% (± 15.8%; CI = 66.9–75.1)57.9% (± 17.9%; CI = 52.3–61.6)
Examiner 2 (post-training)24.6% (± 38.8%; CI = 13.9–34.0)92.0% (± 10.3%; CI = 89.3–94.6)73.8% (± 12.5%; CI = 69.7–76.2)53.8% (± 31.2%; CI = 44.9–61.1)
retention68.3% (± 24.1%; CI = 64.3–71.6)92.5% (± 10.5%; CI = 89.2–94.7)74.6% (± 21.5%; CI = 68.4–79.5)78.4% (± 26.8%; CI = 71.0–84.9)
p-ValuesExaminer 1 (post-training)p < .435p < .008p < .001p < .138
Examiner 2 (post-training)p < .332p < .107p < .001p < .001
retentionp < .267p < .968p < .477p < .764