JMIR medical education · 2026
Simulation-Based Radiology Training for Medical Technical Assistant Trainees: Quasi-Experimental Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Witti Matthias J, Coleman Joséphine-Charlotte, Richters Constanze, Schönberger Johanna, de Ruijter Mary-Anne, Stortz Alina, Bauer Melanie, Kiriakidou Raisa, Stadler Matthias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education is increasingly used in medical training to safely develop clinical skills. However, the perceived relevance of a simulation ("utility value") to a learner's future work may influence its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a digital radiology simulation module for medical technical assistant trainees in Germany, examining learning gains, group differences in motivational variables, and the moderating role of utility value.
METHODS: Fifty German medical technical assistant trainees (including 24 specializing in radiology and 26 focused on laboratory medicine) completed a pretest and posttest requiring them to arrange 12 steps of a contrast injection procedure in the correct order. All participants then engaged in an interactive computer simulation of the procedure. After the simulation, trainees rated their self-efficacy, as well as the intrinsic value and perceived utility value of the simulation. Learning gains were analyzed using a mixed-design ANOVA on the Spearman footrule distance composite score, and group differences in motivational variables were tested using independent-sample 2-tailed t tests. The moderating role of utility value on learning gains was examined using a mixed-design analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: Trainees showed significant improvement in procedural sequencing from pretest to posttest (F1,48=22.05; P<.001; η2=0.103), indicating effective learning across both groups. Radiology-specialized trainees reported higher utility value for the training than laboratory-focused trainees (t46=4.43; P<.001; Cohen d=1.28), whereas no group differences emerged in intrinsic value or self-efficacy. Contrary to our hypothesis, perceived utility value did not significantly moderate learning gains (F1,46=0.92; P=.34).
CONCLUSIONS: The simulation produced robust learning gains regardless of learner specialization or perceived relevance. While utility value perception differed markedly between groups, it did not translate into differential learning outcomes, suggesting that well-designed simulations can be effective across learners with varying levels of task relevance.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a digital radiology simulation module for medical technical assistant trainees in Germany, examining learning gains, group differences in motivational variables, and the moderating role of utility value.
METHODS: Fifty German medical technical assistant trainees (including 24 specializing in radiology and 26 focused on laboratory medicine) completed a pretest and posttest requiring them to arrange 12 steps of a contrast injection procedure in the correct order. All participants then engaged in an interactive computer simulation of the procedure. After the simulation, trainees rated their self-efficacy, as well as the intrinsic value and perceived utility value of the simulation. Learning gains were analyzed using a mixed-design ANOVA on the Spearman footrule distance composite score, and group differences in motivational variables were tested using independent-sample 2-tailed t tests. The moderating role of utility value on learning gains was examined using a mixed-design analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: Trainees showed significant improvement in procedural sequencing from pretest to posttest (F1,48=22.05; P<.001; η2=0.103), indicating effective learning across both groups. Radiology-specialized trainees reported higher utility value for the training than laboratory-focused trainees (t46=4.43; P<.001; Cohen d=1.28), whereas no group differences emerged in intrinsic value or self-efficacy. Contrary to our hypothesis, perceived utility value did not significantly moderate learning gains (F1,46=0.92; P=.34).
CONCLUSIONS: The simulation produced robust learning gains regardless of learner specialization or perceived relevance. While utility value perception differed markedly between groups, it did not translate into differential learning outcomes, suggesting that well-designed simulations can be effective across learners with varying levels of task relevance.