Volume 33: Issue 1

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences and expertise effects on biomechanical parameters as well as force accuracy and variability for students learning spinal manipulation.

Methods:

A total of 137 fourth- and fifth-year students were recruited for the study. Biomechanical parameters (preload, time to peak force, peak force, rate of force), as well as accuracy and variability of thoracic spine manipulation performance, were evaluated during 5 consecutive trials using a force-sensing table and a target force of 450 N. Gender, expertise differences on biomechanical parameters, as well as constant, variable, and absolute error were assessed using 2-way analysis of variance.

Results:

Analyses showed significant gender differences for several biomechanical parameters, as well as significant gender differences in accuracy and variability. Although women showed lower time to peak force and rate of force values, they were more precise and showed less variability than men when performing thoracic spine manipulations. Students with clinical expertise (fifth-year students) used less force and were more precise.

Conclusion:

Our results showed that gender differences in spinal manipulation performance exist and that these differences seem to be mainly explained by alternative motor strategies. To develop gender-specific teaching methods, future studies should explore why men and women approach spinal manipulation tasks differently.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of obesity bias among preclinical and clinical chiropractic students and faculty at an integrative health care academic institution.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional quantitative, single-method survey with group comparison using the Beliefs About Obese Persons scale (BAOP) and the Attitudes Toward Obese Persons scale. Both instruments were administered as a single 28 question survey via email to 450 students and 46 faculty members in a doctor of chiropractic (DC) program. Differences were determined by 2 tailed t tests.

Results:

The response rate for faculty and students was 31% and 65%, respectively. One hundred forty-three DC students, preclinical (n = 65) and clinical (n = 78), and 30 DC faculty, preclinical (n = 15) and clinical (n = 15) completed the survey. Both students and faculty harbored antiobesity attitudes and moderate antiobesity beliefs. Students demonstrated slightly more positive attitudes toward obese persons than did preclinical faculty. Although preclinical faculty did not demonstrate more biased attitudes than did preclinical students (p = .057), they were more biased than clinical students (p = .26). On the BAOP, preclinical faculty scored significantly lower than both preclinical students and clinical students (p = .013 and .017, respectively).

Conclusion:

Obesity bias was common among clinical and preclinical chiropractic students and faculty at our institution. A cultural shift that reduces bias may require changes in both the curriculum and cocurriculum.

Objective:

Authors in the health sciences are encouraged to write in the active voice in the belief that this enhances comprehensibility. Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare objectively measured and subjectively perceived comprehensibility of texts in which one voice or the other was highly prevalent.

Methods:

Objectively rated comprehensibility was obtained by presenting 161 2nd-year chiropractic students with questions pertaining to 2 methods sections of biomedical articles, each presented in its original form with high prevalence of the passive voice, and in a manipulated form with all main verbs in the active voice. The difficulties and sensitivities of questions were compared for the 2 forms of each text. Comprehensibility was obtained by asking students to rate the comprehensibility of authentic sentences from biomedical manuscripts and matched manipulated form in which the voice of the main verb had been changed. Differences in comprehensibility between the 2 texts were assessed with a dependent t test.

Results:

There were no significant differences in the difficulties or sensitivities of questions pertaining to the 2 original texts written in the passive voice versus the active voice (p > .35 for all comparisons). Students rated sentences written in the passive voice as marginally more comprehensible than sentences written in the active voice (p = .003 per 2-tailed paired t test).

Conclusion:

The texts written in the active voice were not more comprehensible than texts written in the passive voice. The results of this study do not support editorial guidelines that favor active voice over passive voice.

Peer-reviewer acknowledgements

The conference organizers wish to thank the many reviewers for their wonderful and necessary service. Their work makes the program successful and we are quite grateful.

Medhat Alattar, Robert Appleyard, Iben Axen, Barclay Bakkum, Deborah Barr, Patrick Battaglia, Edward Bednarz, Judy Bhatti, Charles Blum, Karen Bobak, Ron Boesch, Linda Bowers, Rick Branson, Teresa Brennan, Joseph Brimhall, Leo Bronston, Thomas Brozovich, Paul Bruno, Jeanmarie Burke, Kara Burnham, Alana Callender, Jerrilyn Cambron, Marni Capes, Beth Carleo, Jonathan Carlos, Cynthia Chapman, Chin-Suk Cho, Ngai Chow, Jesse Coats, Alena Coleman, Stephan Cooper, Elaine Cooperstein, Robert Cooperstein, Matthew Cote, Brian Cunningham, Stuart Currie,

Small Teaching Online

Carissa ManriquePhD,

Abdellatif AlsharifPhD,

Kelly BrownMS,

Cynthia CalongneDCS,

Terence CockerhamMA, and

Themba NgwenyaDCS