EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 20 / Numéro 2 (2019) Pédagogie Médicale, 20 2 (2019) 79-90 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 20, Numéro 2, 2019
Page(s) 79 - 90
Section Recherche et Perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2020009
Publié en ligne 24 mars 2020
  1. Sinclair PM, Kable A, Levett-Jones T, Booth D. The effectiveness of Internet-based e-learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: A systematic review. Inf J Nurs Stud 2016;57:70‐81. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark R, Mayer R. E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 4th ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. O’Brien HL. Theoretical perspectives on user engagement. In: O’Brien HL, Cairns P, editors. Why engagement matters: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and innovations on user engagement with digital media. Basel, Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp. 1‐26. [Google Scholar]
  4. O’Brien HL, Cairns P, Hall M. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. Int J Hum-Comput St 2018;112:28‐39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S. Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: A systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med 2016;7:254‐67. [Google Scholar]
  6. Doherty K, Doherty G. Engagement in HCI: Conception, theory and measurement. ACM Comput Surv 2018;51:1‐39. [Google Scholar]
  7. O’Brien HL, Toms EG. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 2010;61:50‐69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev 2010;22:123‐38. [Google Scholar]
  9. Young JQ, van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education. Med Teach 2014;36:371‐84. [Google Scholar]
  10. Leppink J, Paas F, van der Vleuten CP, van Gog T, van Merrienboer J. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav Res Methods 2013;45:1058‐72. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Paas F. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem solving skills in statistics: A cognitive load approach. J Educ Psychol 1992;84:429‐34. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 1988;52:139‐83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. DeLeeuw KE, Mayer RE. A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. J Educ Psychol 2008;100:223‐34. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fontaine G. Évaluation de la plateforme de formation en ligne MOTIV@CŒUR sur les interventions motivationnelles brèves auprès d’infirmières en soins aigus cardiovasculaires. Master’s Thesis. Montréal, Canada: Université de Montréal, 2016. [On-line] Disponible sur : https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/16290. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fontaine G, Cossette S, Heppell S, Boyer L, Mailhot T, Simard MJ, et al. Evaluation of a web-based e-learning platform for brief motivational interviewing by cardiovascular care nurses: A pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2016;8:e224. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fontaine G, Cossette S, Maheu-Cadotte MA, Mailhot T, Heppell S, Roussy C, et al. Behavior change counseling training programs for nurses and nursing students: A systematic descriptive review. Nurse Educ Today 2019;82:37‐50. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fontaine G, Cossette S, Maheu-Cadotte MA, Mailhot T, Deschênes MF, Mathieu-Dupuis G, et al. Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9:e025252. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:268‐74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Béland S, Cousineau D, Loye N. Utiliser le coefficient omega de McDonald à la place de l’alpha de Cronbach. McGill J Educ 2017;52:791‐804. [Google Scholar]
  20. University of Florida Health. Biostatistics Open Learning Textbook. In: Outliers. 2019. [On-line] Disponible sur : https://bolt.mph.ufl.edu/6050-6052/unit-1/one-quantitative-variable-introduction/understanding-outliers/#extreme. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab 2012;10:486‐9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical method, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cook DA, Castillo RM, Gas B, Artino Jr AR. Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: Validation of three instruments’ scores. Med Educ 2017;51:1061‐74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NY): Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol 2014;105:399‐412. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications, 4th ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Leppink J, Paas F, Van Gog T, van Der Vleuten CP, Van Merrienboer JJ. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learn Instr 2014;30:32‐42. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cogn Sci 1988;12:257‐88. [Google Scholar]
  29. Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol 2003;38:63‐71. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sellbom M, Tellegen A. Factor analysis in psychological assessment research: Common pitfalls and recommendations. Psychol Assess 2019;31:1428‐41. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, 1994. [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.