Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Kruskal–Wallis Test Results for Likert-Type Items (Q5–Q17)

Item	Group 1 M (SD)	Group 2 M (SD)	Group 3 M (SD)	H (df = 2)	pHolm	η²	Effect
Q5.Hand positioning/technique	2.60 (0.81)	4.00 (0.46)	4.45 (0.51)	59.40	< 0.001	0.62	Large
Q6. Sequence of instrument use	3.03 (0.98)	3.93 (0.59)	4.42 (0.62)	34.48	< 0.001	0.35	Large
Q7.Ease of maintaining attention	2.54 (1.07)	3.86 (0.44)	4.65 (0.49)	60.62	< 0.001	0.64	Large
Q8.Clear observation of procedural steps	2.23 (1.00)	3.90 (0.49)	4.45 (0.57)	59.93	< 0.001	0.63	Large
Q9.Surgeon–patient communication	3.91 (0.74)	4.07 (0.59)	4.68 (0.48)	24.63	< 0.001	0.25	Large
Q10. Surgical planning	2.37 (0.94)	3.76 (0.74)	4.32 (0.70)	51.30	< 0.001	0.54	Large
Q11.Complication management	2.40 (1.12)	3.66 (0.94)	4.32 (0.65)	40.86	< 0.001	0.42	Large
Q12.Surgeon’s explanations	3.31 (0.90)	3.93 (0.46)	4.68 (0.54)	44.90	< 0.001	0.47	Large
Q13.Integration of theory and practice	2.80 (0.76)	3.90 (0.49)	4.58 (0.56)	57.18	< 0.001	0.60	Large
Q14.Clinical observation skills	2.89 (0.93)	3.93 (0.75)	4.58 (0.56)	46.84	< 0.001	0.49	Large
Q15.Contribution to professional development	3.09 (0.74)	4.21 (0.56)	4.58 (0.56)	49.45	< 0.001	0.52	Large
Q16.Decision-making under stress	3.14 (0.85)	4.10 (0.56)	4.32 (0.60)	35.30	< 0 0.001	0.36	Large
Q17. Patient behavior/stress	3.46 (0.89)	4.10 (0.49)	4.39 (0.72)	23.12	< 0.001	0.23	Large

Likert scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. [Group 1 (Traditional observation: n = 35), Group 2 (Live video streaming observation: n = 29), Group 3 (Hybrid observation: n = 31)]. H = Kruskal–Wallis test statistic. η² = Kruskal–Wallis effect size (epsilon-squared estimate). pHolm = Holm–Bonferroni adjusted p-value. Effect size classifications were based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria