ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2018
Differences in learning retention when teaching a manual motor skill with a visual vs written instructional aide.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differences in learning retention and experience of augmented reality notes compared to traditional paper notes in a chiropractic technique course: A randomized trial.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: This study aimed to determine if a written or visual teaching aid influenced learning retention when teaching a manual motor skill.
methods: Seventy chiropractic students who had completed an upper cervical specific chiropractic technique course were evaluated for technique-specific recall before and after a review using either a visual teaching aid or a written guide. Two randomized groups reviewed original course-written guides ( n = 33) or new visual teaching aids ( n = 37). Repeated-measures analysis of variance and post hoc t tests compared group differences in reevaluation scores.
results: Performance of both groups improved postintervention ( F[1, 68] = 182.56, p < .001). However, the visual teaching aid group improved more than the written guide group ( F[1, 68] = 4.66, p = .03). The visual teaching aid group percentage score improved by 24.4% (SD ± 12.3%, p < .01); the written guide group improved by 17.7% (SD ± 13.7%; p < .01).
conclusion: The mean learning retention improved in both the visual and the written teaching guide groups, but there was greater improvement in the visual aid group. This study suggests that visual teaching aids may be more useful than written guides when students attempt to recall information related to learning a manual motor skill.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.