Comparing three pedagogical approaches to psychomotor skills acquisition

• Published in: The American journal of surgery Vol. 203; no. 1; pp. 8 - 13
• Main Authors: Willis, Ross E., Ph.D, Richa, Jacqueline, M.D, Oppeltz, Richard, M.D, Nguyen, Patrick, M.D, Wagner, Kelly, B.S, Van Sickle, Kent R., M.D, Dent, Daniel L., M.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 2012; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical Competence; Competency-Based Education - methods; Deliberate practice; Digestive system. Abdomen; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods; Educational Measurement; Endoscopy; Female; General aspects; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - education; Male; Medical sciences; Models, Educational; Motor ability; Pedagogy; Proficiency-based training; Psychomotor Performance; Repetition; Simulators; Surgery; Suture Techniques; Time Factors; Training; Training; Laparoscopy; Proficiency-based training; Simulators; Deliberate practice; Acquisition; Medicine; Treatment; Surgery; Professional practice; Vocational aptitude; Endoscopy; Simulator; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.07.002

Abstract Background We compared traditional pedagogical approaches such as time- and repetition-based methods with proficiency-based training. Methods Laparoscopic novices were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 training conditions. In experiment 1, participants in the time condition practiced for 60 minutes, participants in the repetition condition performed 5 practice trials, and participants in the proficiency condition trained until reaching a predetermined proficiency goal. In experiment 2, practice time and number of trials were equated across conditions. Results In experiment 1, participants in the proficiency-based training conditions outperformed participants in the other 2 conditions ( P < .014); however, these participants trained longer ( P < .001) and performed more repetitions ( P < .001). In experiment 2, despite training for similar amounts of time and number of repetitions, participants in the proficiency condition outperformed their counterparts ( P < .038). In both experiments, the standard deviations for the proficiency condition were smaller than the other conditions. Conclusions Proficiency-based training results in trainees who perform uniformly and at a higher level than traditional training methodologies.