Knowledge of Midwifery Instruments Following Use of the Informasi Instrumen Kebidanan Digital Book: A Quasi Experimental Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22487/tan7x006Keywords:
digital book, INSTADAN, knowledge, Midwifery education, Midwifery instrumentsAbstract
Background: A digital book may support learning instrument names and functions, but knowledge scores do not establish practical competence. Objective: To compare immediate posttest instrument knowledge between INSTADAN and lecturer PowerPoint groups after baseline adjustment. Methods: This nonrandomized study analyzed 161 first year midwifery students from four intact classes (INSTADAN, n=78; control, n=83). A 30 item knowledge test was administered before and after teaching. Individual level ANCOVA adjusted for pretest score, age, and information sources with HC3 standard errors. Results: Mean scores rose from 68.72 to 85.04 with INSTADAN and from 68.84 to 79.88 with PowerPoint. The adjusted difference was 6.08 points (95% CI, 3.99 to 8.17; P<0.001), equivalent to approximately 1.82 correct answers. Student stratified bootstrap gave a 95% interval of 4.05 to 8.14 points. Neither method adjusted for class dependence. Conclusion: INSTADAN was associated with higher immediate knowledge scores; four class allocation, baseline imbalance, and incomplete assessment documentation limit causal interpretation. Retention and practical competence were not examined.
Downloads
References
1. Vermeulen J, Luyben A, Jokinen M, Matintupa E, O’Connell R, Bick D. Establishing a Europe wide foundation for high quality midwifery education: the role of the European Midwives Association (EMA). Midwifery. 2018;64:128–131. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.06.009
2. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 suppl):S63–S67. doi:10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045
3. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet based learning in the health professions: a meta analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181–1196. doi:10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
4. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: a systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406. doi:10.7189/jogh.04.010406
5. Tudor Car L, Poon S, Kyaw BM, et al. Digital education for health professionals: an evidence map, conceptual framework, and research agenda. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(3):e31977. doi:10.2196/31977
6. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44(6):543–549. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03624.x
7. Dunleavy G, Nikolaou CK, Nifakos S, Atun R, Law GCY, Tudor Car L. Mobile digital education for health professions: systematic review and meta analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e12937. doi:10.2196/12937
8. O’Connor S, Andrews T. Smartphones and mobile applications (apps) in clinical nursing education: a student perspective. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;69:172–178. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2018.07.013
9. Adelia D, Indarwati F, Rahmah R, Suminar IT. The effect of educational interventions through animated video and booklet on parents’ knowledge regarding cognitive stimulation in preschool aged children. Healthy Tadulako Journal (Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako). 2026;12(3):444–454. doi:10.22487/atvb7n86
10. Purwati Y, Andiani S. Penerapan komik digital pada edukasi kanker payudara terhadap minat pemeriksaan payudara sendiri. Healthy Tadulako Journal (Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako). 2023;9(3):273–278. doi:10.22487/htj.v9i3.796
11. Subekti AT, Atmoko D, Miftah M. The effectiveness of video database based education in improving occupational safety and health literacy among construction sector MSME workers. Healthy Tadulako Journal (Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako). 2026;12(2):307–315. doi:10.22487/dthpsz98
12. Azizah NPN, Adhi MHP, Suparti S, Fatwati NF. Comparison of self directed video and simulation methods on hand only CPR skills. Healthy Tadulako Journal (Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako). 2025;11(2):265–274. doi:10.22487/htj.v11i2.1630
13. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N; TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):361–366. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361
14. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687
15. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166.e7–166.e16. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
16. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
17. Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ. 2001;323(7321):1123–1124. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1123
18. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–3107. doi:10.1002/sim.3697
19. MacKinnon JG, White H. Some heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J Econom. 1985;29(3):305–325. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7
20. Cameron AC, Miller DL. A practitioner’s guide to cluster robust inference. J Hum Resour. 2015;50(2):317–372. doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
21. Huang FL, Li X. Using cluster robust standard errors when analyzing group randomized trials with few clusters. Behav Res Methods. 2022;54(3):1181–1199. doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01627-0
22. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332(7549):1080. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080
23. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–706. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh090
24. Morris SB. Estimating effect sizes from pretest posttest control group designs. Organ Res Methods. 2008;11(2):364–386. doi:10.1177/1094428106291059
25. Galmarini E, Marciano L, Schulz PJ. The effectiveness of visual based interventions on health literacy in health care: a systematic review and meta analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24:718. doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11138-1
26. Morgado M, Botelho J, Machado V, Mendes JJ, Adesope O, Proença L. Video based approaches in health education: a systematic review and meta analysis. Sci Rep. 2024;14:23651. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-73671-7
27. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta analysis. JAMA. 2011;306(9):978–988. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1234
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Putri Yuniartis, Wulan Anjani, Devi Devinda Novita Sari, Hidayanti Arifuddin, Charisma Destrikasari, Mita Herlina Sari, Nur Dwi Yulianti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
