↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Peyton’s four-step approach: differential effects of single instructional steps on procedural and memory performance – a clarification study

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Peyton’s four-step approach: differential effects of single instructional steps on procedural and memory performance – a clarification study
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/amep.s81923
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Krautter, Ronja Dittrich, Annette Safi, Justine Krautter, Imad Maatouk, Andreas Moeltner, Wolfgang Herzog, Christoph Nikendei

Abstract

Although Peyton's four-step approach is a widely used method for skills-lab training in undergraduate medical education and has been shown to be more effective than standard instruction, it is unclear whether its superiority can be attributed to a specific single step. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the differential learning outcomes of the separate steps of Peyton's four-step approach. Volunteer medical students were randomly assigned to four different groups. Step-1 group received Peyton's Step 1, Step-2 group received Peyton's Steps 1 and 2, Step-3 group received Peyton's Steps 1, 2, and 3, and Step-3mod group received Peyton's Steps 1 and 2, followed by a repetition of Step 2. Following the training, the first independent performance of a central venous catheter (CVC) insertion using a manikin was video-recorded and scored by independent video assessors using binary checklists. The day after the training, memory performance during delayed recall was assessed with an incidental free recall test. A total of 97 participants agreed to participate in the trial. There were no statistically significant group differences with regard to age, sex, completed education in a medical profession, completed medical clerkships, preliminary memory tests, or self-efficacy ratings. Regarding checklist ratings, Step-2 group showed a superior first independent performance of CVC placement compared to Step-1 group (P<0.001), and Step-3 group showed a superior performance to Step-2 group (P<0.009), while Step-2 group and Step-3mod group did not differ (P=0.055). The findings were similar in the incidental free recall test. Our study identified Peyton's Step 3 as being the most crucial part within Peyton's four-step approach, contributing significantly more to learning success than the previous steps and reaching beyond the benefit of a mere repetition of skills demonstration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Postgraduate 21 11%
Other 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 43 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Psychology 7 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 45 24%
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 19 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,991,104
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,000
of 279,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 279,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them