Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27681711›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2016

Adaptation of the Grasha Riechman Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory to assess individual teaching and learning styles in a quality improvement collaborative.

James H Ford, James M Robinson, Meg E Wise

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00934141 (Randomized Control Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00934141 phase3completednot on this map

Randomized Control Trial (RCT) Evaluating Improvement Strategies in Addiction Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonRan2006 to 2011Enrolled201ConditionsAddictionArmsLearning Session, Interest Circle Calls, Coaching, Website
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Goldilocks and Entrustment: Finding the Amount of Learner Autonomy That's Just Right.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

James H FordCenter for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 610 Walnut Street, Madison, WI, 53726, USA. jhfordii@wisc.edu.
James M RobinsonCenter for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 610 Walnut Street, Madison, WI, 53726, USA.
Meg E WiseSonderegger Research Center, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.

Funding

Impact of Staff Learning and Coach Teaching Styles in Quality ImprovementR03DA034956 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI FORD, JAMES H · 2013 to 2014
$151k
NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA034956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNIATx200, a quality improvement collaborative, involved 201 substance abuse clinics. Each clinic was randomized to one of four implementation strategies: (a) interest circle calls, (b) learning sessions, (c) coach only or (d) a combination of all three. Each strategy was led by NIATx200 coaches who provided direct coaching or facilitated the interest circle and learning session interventions.

methodsEligibility was limited to NIATx200 coaches (N = 18), and the executive sponsor/change leader of participating clinics (N = 389). Participants were invited to complete a modified Grasha Riechmann Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory. Principal components analysis determined participants' preferred learning and teaching styles.

resultsResponses were received from 17 (94.4 %) of the coaches. Seventy-two individuals were excluded from the initial sample of change leaders and executive sponsors (N = 389). Responses were received from 80 persons (25.2 %) of the contactable individuals. Six learning profiles for the executive sponsors and change leaders were identified: Collaborative/Competitive (N = 28, 36.4 %); Collaborative/Participatory (N = 19, 24.7 %); Collaborative only (N = 17, 22.1 %); Collaborative/Dependent (N = 6, 7.8 %); Independent (N = 3, 5.2 %); and Avoidant/Dependent (N = 3, 3.9 %). NIATx200 coaches relied primarily on one of four coaching profiles: Facilitator (N = 7, 41.2 %), Facilitator/Delegator (N = 6, 35.3 %), Facilitator/Personal Model (N = 3, 17.6 %) and Delegator (N = 1, 5.9 %). Coaches also supported their primary coaching profiles with one of eight different secondary coaching profiles.

conclusionsThe study is one of the first to assess teaching and learning styles within a QIC. Results indicate that individual learners (change leaders and executive sponsors) and coaches utilize multiple approaches in the teaching and practice-based learning of quality improvement (QI) processes. Identification teaching profiles could be used to tailor the collaborative structure and content delivery. Efforts to accommodate learning styles would facilitate knowledge acquisition enhancing the effectiveness of a QI collaborative to improve organizational processes and outcomes.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00934141 Registered July 6, 2009. Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Change leadersCoachesExecutive sponsorsLearning styleNIATxPrincipal components analysisQuality improvement collaborativeTeaching style

Identifiers

PMID27681711
PMCPMC5041280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.