Face-to-face versus online training for the interpretation of findings in the fiberoptic endoscopic exam of the swallow procedure

• Published in: Advances in medical education and practice Vol. 9; pp. 433 - 441
• Main Authors: Brady, Susan L, Rao, Noel, Gibbons, Patricia J, Williams, Letha, Hakel, Mark, Pape, Theresa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Zealand Dove Medical Press Limited 01.01.2018; Taylor & Francis Ltd; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: Accreditation; Care and treatment; Clinical medicine; Collaboration; College students; Comparative analysis; Deglutition disorders; Diagnostic tests; Distance education; Distance learning; Dysphagia; Education; Endoscopy; Fees; Fiber optic equipment; Hospitals; Instructional design; Knowledge; Legal fees; Medical personnel training; Medical students; Online education; Online instruction; Original Research; Patients; Performance evaluation; Physicians; Physiology; Rehabilitation; Speech therapy; Supervision; Task analysis; Teaching; Training; United States > US; deglutition; dysphagia; endoscopy; swallowing; training; medical education
• ISSN: 1179-7258; 1179-7258
• DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S142947

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of an online, interdisciplinary, interactive course designed to increase the ability to accurately interpret the fiberoptic endoscopic exam of the swallow (FEES) procedure to traditional, face-to-face (F2F) lectures for both graduate medical education (GME) and graduate speech language pathology (GSLP) programs. This was a prospective, quantitative, nonrandomized study. Participants were medical residents in physical medicine and rehabilitation from two affiliated programs and graduate students in speech language pathology from two instructional cohorts at a single institution. Group 1, traditional group (n=51), participated in F2F lectures using an audience response system, whereas Group 2, online group (n=57), participated in an online, interactive course. The main outcome measure was pre- and post-course FEES knowledge test scores. For Group 1, the mean pre-course score was 26.94 (SD=3.24) and the post-course score was 34.96 (SD=2.51). Differences between pre- and post-course scores for Group 1 were significant ( =-16.38, ≤0.0001). For Group 2, the mean pre-course score was 27.05 (SD=2.74) and the post-course score was 34.05 (SD=2.84). Differences between pre- and post-course scores for Group 2 were significant ( =-13.5, ≤0.0001). The mean knowledge change score for Group 1 and Group 2 was 8.01 (SD=3.50) and 7.04 (SD=3.91), respectively (nonsignificant, =1.372, =0.173), suggesting groups made similar gains. Incorporating technology into GME and GSLP programs yielded comparable gains to traditional lectures. Findings support the use of online education as a viable alternative to the traditional F2F classroom format for the instruction of the cognitive component of the FEES procedure.