Search

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Formative online multiple‐choice tests are ubiquitous in higher education and potentially powerful learning tools. However, commonly used feedback approaches in online multiple‐choice tests can discourage meaningful engagement and enable strategies, such as trial‐and‐error, that circumvent intended learning outcomes. These strategies will not prepare graduates as self‐regulated learners, nor for the complexities of contemporary work settings. Objectives: To investigate whether providing only a score after formative online multiple‐choice test attempts (score‐only feedback) increases the likelihood of students to engage in self‐regulated learning compared with more directive feedback. Measurable outcomes included deeper learning, collaboration, information seeking, and satisfaction. Methods: Data in this mixed methods study were collected from nursing students through surveys, test results, focus groups, and student discussion board contributions. A quasi‐experimental design was used for quantitative data, and qualitative data were analysed thematically against domains of self‐regulated learning. Results and Conclusions: Students receiving score‐only feedback were more cognitively engaged with the content, collaborated constructively, and sought out richer sources of information. However, it was also associated with lower satisfaction. In this study, minimal feedback created states of uncertainty, which resulted in the activation of self‐regulatory actions. Implications for Practice: Providing overly directive feedback for formative online multiple‐choice tests is conducive to surface‐level learning strategies. By minimising feedback and allowing for extended states of uncertainty, students are more likely to regulate their learning through self‐assessment and problem‐solving strategies, all of which are required by graduates to meet the challenges of real‐world work settings. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Formative online multiple‐choice tests are widely used in higher education.Feedback is a critical element in the design of effective online multiple‐choice tests.Formative feedback should promote self‐regulated learning.Feedback types used in multiple‐choice tests facilitate strategies not conducive to self‐regulation. What this paper adds: Online multiple‐choice test feedback can influence how students self‐regulate their learning.Less feedback can result in greater self‐evaluation and performance in summative assessment.Less feedback can encourage richer help‐seeking strategies (collaboration and information seeking).However, less feedback can result in student dissatisfaction. Implications for practice and/or policy: Judicious use of feedback is required in the design of online multiple‐choice tests.Educators should consider providing less feedback to promote learner self‐regulation.Satisfaction with online multiple‐choice tests does not necessarily equate to greater learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]