Knowledge transfer of spinal manipulation skills by student-teachers: a randomised controlled trial
- 210 Downloads
To assess the use of peer-assisted learning (PAL) of complex manipulative motor skills with respect to gender in medical students.
In 2007–2010, 292 students in their 3rd and 4th years of medical school were randomly assigned to two groups [Staff group (SG), PAL group (PG)] led by either staff tutors or student-teachers (ST). The students were taught bimanual practical and diagnostic skills (course education module of eight separate lessons) as well as a general introduction to the theory of spinal manipulative therapy. In addition to qualitative data collection (Likert scale), evaluation was performed using a multiple-choice questionnaire in addition to an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).
Complex motor skills as well as palpatory diagnostic competencies could in fact be better taught through professionals than through ST (manipulative OSCE grades/diagnostic OSCE score; SG vs. PG; male: P = 0.017/P < 0.001, female: P < 0.001/P < 0.001). The registration of theoretical knowledge showed equal results in students taught by staff or ST. In both teaching groups (SG: n = 147, PG: n = 145), no significant differences were observed between male and female students in matters of manipulative skills or theoretical knowledge. Diagnostic competencies were better in females than in males in the staff group (P = 0.041) Overall, students were more satisfied with the environment provided by professional teachers than by ST, though male students regarded the PAL system more suspiciously than their female counterparts.
The peer-assisted learning system does not seem to be generally qualified to transfer such complex spatiotemporal demands as spinal manipulative procedures.
KeywordsPeer teaching Gender differences Randomised controlled trial Complex motor skills Spinal manipulative therapy
The authors wish to thank all the students who participated. Without their enthusiasm and willingness, this project would not have been possible.
Conflict of interest
None to declare.
- 8.Peterson DH, Bergmann TF (2002) Chiropractic technique, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
- 9.Herzog W (2000) The mechanics of spinal manipulation. In: Herzog W (ed) Clinical biomechanics of spinal manipulation. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 92–190Google Scholar
- 17.Heimann D, Lawall J (2001) Leitfaden Manuelle Therapie. Urban & Fischer Verlag, München, JenaGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bischoff HP, Moll H (2007) Kurz gefasstes Lehrbuch der Manuellen Medizin. Spitta-Verlag, BalingenGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kolozsvari NO, Andalib A, Kaneva P, Cao J, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2010) Sex is not everything: the role of gender in early performance of a fundamental laparoscopic skill. Surg Endosc Aug 24, Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar