Gersten Jonker

A better transition with the ACTY   127 5 Group P had statistically significant higher group mean than group C, as determined by independent samples t-test: t(29)=4.089, p<.001, mean difference 12 (3), 95% CI 6 – 18. Group P also had statistically significant higher group mean than group ACTY, as determined by independent samples t-test: t(42)=2.430, p=.019, mean difference 6 (2), 95% CI 1 – 10. Gain In gain between pre-test and post-test scores, there was no statistically significant difference between means of group ACTY and group C on all assessment modalities, as determined by one-way ANOVA (Table 4). TABLE 4: Gain ANOVA Assessment modality ANOVA p Knowledge F(1,35)=0.287 .596 CBDs F(1,35)=0.514 .478 OSCEs F(1,35)=0.002 .964 Simulations F(1,31)=0.035 .853 Post-test GRS In addition to checklist scores, on CBDs, OSCEs and simulations, assessors evaluated participant performance on a three-point global rating score (does not meet expectations – borderline - meets expectations), in answer to the question“How did the participant’s performance compare to the expected level of a PNIT with six months of clinical experience?”. We used a cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds to determine the effect of group type on receiving a high GRS. The deviance goodness-of-fit test indicated that the model was a good fit to the observed data of CBDs, χ 2 (2)= 1.37, p=.504, OSCEs, χ 2 (2)= 1.01, p=.603, and simulations, χ 2 (2)=.621, p=.733. The final model statistically significant predicted the dependent variable over and above the intercept-only model for CBDs χ 2 7.37, p=.023, OSCEs χ 2 12.24, p=.002, and simulations χ 2 21.62, p<.001.