Validity and Reliability of Methods for Sonography Education in Physiotherapy: Onsite vs. Online
AuthorsFernández Carnero, Samuel; Cuenca Zaldívar, Juan Nicolás; Pecos Martín, Daniel; Achalandabaso-Ochoa, Alexander; Ferragut-Garcias, Alejandro; [et al.]
IdentifiersPermanent link (URI): http://hdl.handle.net/10017/47308
Fernández-Carnero, Samuel et al., 2020. Validity and Reliability of Methods for Sonography Education in Physiotherapy: Onsite vs. Online. Applied sciences, 10(18), p.6456.
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
© 2020 The Authors. Licensee MDPI
Background: in physiotherapy, the interest in sonography education has been increasing in recent decades, giving rise to opportunities in education in an attempt to meet the elevated demand. In other health professions, online education has demonstrated to be of interest, and another possibility by which to obtain knowledge. Methods: this exploratory observational prospective study compared the outcomes between onsite versus online education, and was approved by the ethics committee of the Francisco de Vitoria University. Two groups (onsite and online) with 136 attendants and two levels for each (basic and advanced) received the same content but through different presentations. Theoretical exams were conducted via "Kahoot" and practical exams using phantoms, and the results were subject to statistical analyses. Results: the average age of onsite participants was 29.5 (25&#-35.25) years and 34 (28.5&amp;amp;amp;amp;-40.5) for the online participants, with a higher percentage of women. The average score ranks in the Kahoot_basic test were higher for both online groups corresponding to basic (group 1) and advanced (group 2) levels: 7 (6.5, 7.5) for group 1 and 7 (6.5, 8.5) for group 2 vs. the onsite groups: 6 (5.5, 7) for group 1 and 6 (5, 6.5) for group 2. In the practical exam, the model detected that a small negative difference between the Onsite 2 group and the total effect (&;8722#1.23148, SE = 0.43687) was significant (t = −2.819, p = 0.00558) with a low effect size (R2 adjusted = 0.025) for the measurements of the hollow structure; the difference between the Online 2 and Onsite 1 group was positive (1.5026, SE = 0.5822) and significant (t = 2.5809, p = 0.0113), with a low effect size (R 2 adjusted = 0.016) for the solid structure depth measurement. Conclusions: the results showed that there could be an opportunity to access sonography knowledge through online education in physical therapy compared to the traditional onsite model. These conclusions support the use of a low-cost and accessible method for ultrasound education.