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

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