Results
anxiety
SECONDARY
A total of 60 participants were recruited for the study. 55 were included in the analysis. Two participants did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three additional participants dropped out during the study and thus were not analyzed.
Both groups showed similar demographic distribution (Table Baseline characteristicsMean ± sdRegarding pre-test data collected in the beginning of the study with the baseline questionnaires for satisfaction with own performance, self-efficacy as well as the four components of the questionnaire current motivation, no difference was seen between the two groups (Table Baseline results of parameters of psychology of learningSatisfaction (using a Likert scale with a range of 0–100, with 100 corresponding to maximum satisfaction), Self-Efficacy Short Scale (ASKU) (using a Likert scale of 1(does not apply at all)–5(applies completely)), and Questionnaire on Current Motivation (QCM) (measuring four components specific to the learning and performance situation with 18 items on a Likert scale of 1(does not apply at all)–7(applies completely))Mean ± sd, * significant for At pre-test, there was no difference between the two groups for the OSATS procedural checklist, the time per knot, and the knot quality score (Table Baseline knot attemptsMean ± sd, * significant for Video-based learning of coping strategies for common errors did not result in a significant difference between the intervention and control group in terms of total number of knot attempts until proficiency level in this study (18.8 ± 5.5 vs. 21.3 ± 6.5; There was a significantly higher proportion for the number of technically successful knots after the first intervention (attempt 5) for the intervention group than for the control group (0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; Proportion of knots achieving technical proficiency from the first intervention onward, *significant for Looking at the knot attempts assessed by a blinded rater (proficiency attempts as well as individual samples), it is noticeable that the proportion of blinded attempts that met the criteria for technical proficiency (i.e., only failed to meet the time limit) was significantly higher for the intervention group at 60.9% vs. 38.0% in the control group (In the final survey (after reaching proficiency level), there was no difference in satisfaction with own performance. The self-efficacy short scale as secondary endpoint also showed no significant difference between the groups. The probability of success, challenge, and anxiety components of current motivation showed no difference. Interest was significantly higher for the intervention group (Table Secondary endpoints (satisfaction, ASKU, QCM)Mean ± sd, * significant for All participants were asked to complete the questionnaires on current motivation, satisfaction with own performance, and self-efficacy on a frequent interval during the study [The intervention group completed an online survey after each use of the coping videos to analyze errors and the usefulness of the coping videos [Four items most frequently rated as problematic on the OSATS procedure score were second winding of the knot (item 8; 24.3% of surveys), correct guidance of the needle when piercing the tissue (item 4; 22.5%), picking up the needle (item 1; 21.6%), and first winding of the knot (item 7; 19.8%).81.1% of the participants from the intervention group rated the coping videos as helpful. The control group did not perform any such error analysis, because they only had access to the mastery video [After the end of the study, the subjects were asked about aspects of their subjective learning success (Table Subjective learning successMean ± standard deviation, * significant for 