Left to their own devices: Medical learners’ use of mobile technologies

Dear Sir

This letter is in connection with the article published in the February 2014 issue of Medical Teacher (Ellaway et al. 2014). The article deals with an important and current theme and would be of interest to many as the technology to which medical students have access improves at a rapid pace. However, we would like to draw your attention to some points to which the authors had paid scant attention and a few others that had led to untenable interpretations.

The authors have not clearly stated the objective of the study.

The data that the authors refer to are not in the interval scale but in the ordinal. A parametric test such as the t-test is not the appropriate test statistic for use with ordinal scale data. Moreover, why the author has mentioned a negative ‘t’ value is not clear. The importance of calculating ‘t’ value is that it allows the researcher to compare the value obtained against that given in the ‘t’ table.

Table 1 shows that for the years 3 and 4, there is a significant difference in e-mail (p = 0.041). The mean is 3 and 3.27 respectively and therefore the reader can conclude that the clinical group uses the technology more for non-academic purposes in comparison to the preclinical group.

In the pre-clerkship and clerkship groups, five variables are reported to be statistically significant. But the conclusion that may be derived from this significance is not given in the article.

Table 2 is not self-explanatory or the relevant details are not available in the text. How the author reached the percentages given in the table is not clear.

The conclusion reported “the use and utility of mobile devices depended on the learner, the device, the circumstances and the teacher or preceptor” is a statement that would apply to most innovations and the data given in the article do not warrant such a conclusion as regards mobile technologies. The reader would find it difficult, therefore, to decipher how the authors arrived at it.

Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest.