The educational literature generally suggests that supplemental instruction (SI) is effective in improving academic performance in traditionally difficult courses. A pilot program of peer teaching based on the SI model was implemented for an undergraduate course in human anatomy. Students in the course were stratified into three groups based on the number of peer teaching sessions they attended: nonattendees (0 sessions), infrequently attended (1‐3 sessions), and frequently attended (≥ 4 sessions). After controlling for academic preparedness [i.e., admission grade point average (AGPA)] using an analysis of covariance, the final grades of frequent attendees were significantly higher than those of nonattendees (P = 0.025) and infrequent attendees (P = 0.015). A multiple regression analysis was performed to estimate the relative independent contribution of several variables in predicting the final grade. The results suggest that frequent attendance (β = 0.245, P = 0.007) and AGPA (β = 0.555, P < 0.001) were significant positive predictors, while being a first‐year student (β = −0.217, P = 0.006) was a significant negative predictor. Collectively, these results suggest that attending a certain number of sessions may be required to gain a noticeable benefit from the program, and that first‐year students (particularly those with a lower level of academic preparedness) would likely stand to benefit from maximally using the program. End‐of‐semester surveys and reports indicate that the program had several additional benefits, both to the students taking the course and to the students who served as program leaders. Anat Sci Educ 9: 132–142. © 2015 The Authors. Anatomical Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of the American Association of Anatomists.

No abstract

No abstract

Odgers, JB, Zourdos, MC, Helms, ER, Candow, DG, Dahlstrom, B, Bruno, P, and Sousa, CA. Rating of perceived exertion and velocity relationships among trained males and females in the front squat and hexagonal bar deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S23–S30, 2021—This study examined the accuracy of intraset rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to predict repetitions in reserve (RIR) during sets to failure at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on the front squat and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD). Furthermore, the relationship between RPE and average concentric velocity (ACV) during the sets to failure was also determined. Fourteen males (29 ± 6 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.78 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 3.0 ± 0.1 kg·kg−1) and 13 females (30 ± 5 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.60 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 2.5 ± 0.3 kg·kg−1) visited the laboratory 3 times. The first visit tested 1RM on both exercises. During visits 2 and 3, which were performed in a counterbalanced order, subjects performed 4 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM for both exercises. During each set, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they were at “6” and “9” on the RIR-based RPE scale, and ACV was assessed during every repetition. The difference between the actual and predicted repetitions performed was recorded as the RPE difference (RPEDIFF). The RPEDIFF was significantly (p < 0.001) lower at the called 9 RPE versus the called 6 RPE in the front squat for males (9 RPE: 0.09 ± 0.19 versus 6 RPE: 0.71 ± 0.70) and females (9 RPE: 0.19 ± 0.36 versus 6 RPE: 0.86 ± 0.88) and in the HHBD for males (9 RPE: 0.25 ± 0.46 versus 6 RPE: 1.00 ± 1.12) and females (9 RPE: 0.21 ± 0.44 versus 6 RPE: 1.19 ± 1.16). Significant inverse relationships existed between RPE and ACV during both exercises (r = −0.98 to −1.00). These results indicate that well-trained males and females can gauge intraset RPE accurately during moderate repetition sets on the front squat and HHBD.

The quantity and quality of literature on the use of core stability exercises for treating LBP in athletes is low. The existing evidence has been conducted on small and heterogeneous study populations using interventions that vary drastically with only mixed results and short-term follow-up. This precludes the formulation of strong conclusions, and additional high quality research is clearly needed.