Differences in the Effectiveness of Three OHS Training Delivery Methods

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
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,&nbsp;Cynthia Chen,&nbsp;Cameron A. Mustard,&nbsp;Faraz Vahid Shahidi,&nbsp;Victoria Landsman,&nbsp;Peter M. Smith,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

三种职业健康安全培训实施方式的有效性差异。
背景:提供职业安全与健康(OSH)培训的方法已经从面对面转向在线。在加拿大安大略省以三种方式广泛提供标准化职业安全与卫生培训课程,可以衡量其有效性的差异。方法:学习者(N = 899)自行选择参加面对面(F2F)教师主导的学习,在线教师主导的同步远程学习或在线自定进度的电子学习。培训前后的调查收集了有关知识和其他措施的信息。多元回归分析比较知识成就的模式(0%-100%量表;主要结果)、参与、感知效用、感知适用性、自我效能和使用意图。结果:F2F学习者的培训后知识得分比远程学习者高2.5% (95% CI: 0.3%, 4.7%),具有统计学意义(Cohen’s d = 0.23,这被认为是小的)。在线学习者和远程学习者之间的差异在统计学上不显著,仅为0.4%(95%:-1.4%,2.3%)。合作培训提供者认为这些差异在实践中没有意义。在参与、感知效用和自我效能方面,不同模式之间存在统计学上的显著差异。F2F学习者的分数比远程学习者的分数更有利,而远程学习者的分数又比电子学习者的分数更有利。结论:本研究提供的证据表明,F2F、远程学习和电子学习在确保学习者知识成就的能力方面存在很小甚至没有差异。这一发现很可能推广到其他旨在获取新知识的精心设计的短期职业安全与健康培训。需要更多的研究来了解这些模式在职业健康安全基本技能获得和学习转移到工作场所方面是否存在重要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of industrial medicine
American journal of industrial medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
5.70%
发文量
108
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信