Lynda S. Robson, Cynthia Chen, Cameron A. Mustard, Faraz Vahid Shahidi, Victoria Landsman, Peter M. Smith, Aviroop Biswas
{"title":"Differences in the Effectiveness of Three OHS Training Delivery Methods","authors":"Lynda S. Robson, Cynthia Chen, Cameron A. Mustard, Faraz Vahid Shahidi, Victoria Landsman, Peter M. Smith, Aviroop Biswas","doi":"10.1002/ajim.23719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Methods of delivering occupational safety and health (OSH) training have shifted from in-person to online. Widespread delivery of a standardized OSH training course in three modalities in the province of Ontario, Canada allowed measurement of differences in their effectiveness.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Learners (<i>N</i> = 899) self-selected into face-to-face (F2F) instructor-led learning, online instructor-led synchronous distance learning, or online self-paced e-learning. Pre- and post-training surveys collected information on knowledge and other measures. Multiple regression analyses compared modalities on knowledge achievement (0%–100% scale; the primary outcome), engagement, perceived utility, perceived applicability, self-efficacy, and intention-to-use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>F2F learners achieved a statistically significant 2.5% (95% CI: 0.3%, 4.7%) higher post-training knowledge score than distance learners (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.23, which is considered small). A statistically insignificant difference of 0.4% (95%: −1.4%, 2.3%) was seen between e-learners and distance learners. Collaborating training providers regarded these differences as not meaningful in practice. Statistically significant differences between modalities were seen for engagement, perceived utility, and self-efficacy. Scores of F2F learners were more favorable than scores of distance learners, which were, in turn, more favorable than scores of e-learners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study provides evidence that there are small to no differences among F2F, distance and e-learning in their ability to ensure knowledge achievement among learners. This finding is likely generalizable to other well-designed short-term OSH training aimed at acquiring new knowledge. More research is needed to understand whether there are important differences across these modalities in basic OHS skill acquisition and transfer of learning to the workplace.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7873,"journal":{"name":"American journal of industrial medicine","volume":"68 5","pages":"450-463"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajim.23719","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of industrial medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.23719","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Methods of delivering occupational safety and health (OSH) training have shifted from in-person to online. Widespread delivery of a standardized OSH training course in three modalities in the province of Ontario, Canada allowed measurement of differences in their effectiveness.
Methods
Learners (N = 899) self-selected into face-to-face (F2F) instructor-led learning, online instructor-led synchronous distance learning, or online self-paced e-learning. Pre- and post-training surveys collected information on knowledge and other measures. Multiple regression analyses compared modalities on knowledge achievement (0%–100% scale; the primary outcome), engagement, perceived utility, perceived applicability, self-efficacy, and intention-to-use.
Results
F2F learners achieved a statistically significant 2.5% (95% CI: 0.3%, 4.7%) higher post-training knowledge score than distance learners (Cohen's d = 0.23, which is considered small). A statistically insignificant difference of 0.4% (95%: −1.4%, 2.3%) was seen between e-learners and distance learners. Collaborating training providers regarded these differences as not meaningful in practice. Statistically significant differences between modalities were seen for engagement, perceived utility, and self-efficacy. Scores of F2F learners were more favorable than scores of distance learners, which were, in turn, more favorable than scores of e-learners.
Conclusions
This study provides evidence that there are small to no differences among F2F, distance and e-learning in their ability to ensure knowledge achievement among learners. This finding is likely generalizable to other well-designed short-term OSH training aimed at acquiring new knowledge. More research is needed to understand whether there are important differences across these modalities in basic OHS skill acquisition and transfer of learning to the workplace.
期刊介绍:
American Journal of Industrial Medicine considers for publication reports of original research, review articles, instructive case reports, and analyses of policy in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety. The Journal also accepts commentaries, book reviews and letters of comment and criticism. The goals of the journal are to advance and disseminate knowledge, promote research and foster the prevention of disease and injury. Specific topics of interest include: occupational disease; environmental disease; pesticides; cancer; occupational epidemiology; environmental epidemiology; disease surveillance systems; ergonomics; dust diseases; lead poisoning; neurotoxicology; endocrine disruptors.