Results
SE, SD
The score sheet used had been validated in our initial study with inter-rater reliability of the performance scores indicating strong agreement between assessors when six candidates were independently assessed by two examiners at the same time (Cohen’s kappa, k = .839, The mean pre-intervention assessment score was 3.00/30 (10%, SD = 1.87, SE = 0.30). For the face-to-face teaching only group the mean pre-intervention assessment score was 3.35/30 (11.2%, SD = 2.2, SE = 0.49) and for the video adjunct group was 2.65/30 (8.8%, SD = 1.39, SE = 0.31).Between the pre- and post-intervention assessments there was a dropout rate of 2 meaning complete data was available for 40 participants (20 participants per study arm). The mean post-intervention assessment score was 21.11/30 (70%, SD = 5.58, SE = 0.88). For the face-to-face teaching only group the mean improvement in score was 15.42 (SD = 5.64, SE = 1.29) and for the video adjunct group this was 20.68 marks (SD = 4.33, SE = 0.99). The pre- and post-intervention assessment scores for each group with 95% confidence intervals are represented in Fig. Pre- and post-intervention assessment scores for each of the training groups. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervalsTo examine whether the training conditions resulted in reliable differences in performance, we computed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA, the fixed factor was the intervention (face-to-face teaching alone vs face-to-face teaching with video adjunct) and the dependent variable was post-intervention assessment score. The pre-intervention assessment score was entered as a covariate to control for individual differences in baseline performance. We considered α < =.05 to be statistically significant and report eta squared (η [There was no statistically significant influence of the covariate, pre-intervention score [F(1,35) = 2.32, 