↓ Skip to main content

Does tailoring instructional style to a medical student’s self-perceived learning style improve performance when teaching intravenous catheter placement? A randomized controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does tailoring instructional style to a medical student’s self-perceived learning style improve performance when teaching intravenous catheter placement? A randomized controlled study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0720-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Papanagnou, Antonio Serrano, Kaitlyn Barkley, Shruti Chandra, Nicholas Governatori, Nicole Piela, Gregory K. Wanner, Richard Shin

Abstract

Students may have different learning styles. It is unclear, however, whether tailoring instructional methods for a student's preferred learning style improves educational outcomes when teaching procedures. The authors sought to examine whether teaching to a student's self-perceived learning style improved the acquisition of intravenous (IV) catheter placement skills. The authors hypothesized that matching a medical student's preferred learning style with the instructor's teaching style would increase the success of placing an IV catheter. Using the VARK model (i.e., visual [V], auditory [A], read/write [R] and kinesthetic [K]), third-year medical students reported their self-perceived learning style and were subsequently randomized to instructors who were trained to teach according to a specific learning format (i.e., visual, auditory). Success was gauged by: 1) the placement of an IV on the first attempt and 2) the number of attempts made until an IV line was successfully placed. The average number of attempts in the matched learning style group was 1.53, compared to 1.64 in the unmatched learning style group; however, results were not statistically significant. Both matched and unmatched groups achieved a similar success rate (57 and 58 %, respectively). Additionally, a comparison of success between the unmatched and matched students within each learning style modality yielded no statistical significance. Results suggest that providing procedural instruction that is congruent with a student's self-perceived learning style does not appear to improve outcomes when instructing students on IV catheter placement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 4 5%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 30 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,783,916
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,837
of 3,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,809
of 355,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#44
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.