Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23964739›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2013

Comparison of chiropractic student scores before and after utilizing active learning techniques in a classroom setting.

Joseph G Guagliardo, Kathryn T Hoiriis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joseph G Guagliardo
Kathryn T Hoiriis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective : We report the differences in final examination scores achieved by students at the culmination of two different teaching strategies in an introductory skills course. Methods : Multiple choice examination scores from six consecutive academic calendar sessions over 18 months (n = 503) were compared. Two groups were used: Cohort A (n = 290) represented students who were enrolled in the course 3 consecutive academic sessions before an instructional change and Cohort B (n = 213) included students who were enrolled in 3 consecutive academic sessions following the instructional change, which included a more active learning format. Statistical analyses used were 2-tailed independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD), and effect size. Results : The 2-tailed independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t = -3.71, p < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-4.20). Significant difference was found in the highest performing subgroup compared to the lowest performing subgroup in Cohort A (F = 3.343, p = .037). For Cohort A subgroups 1 and 2, Tukey's HSD was p < .028. In Cohort B, no difference was found among subgroups (F = 1.912, p = .150, HSD p > .105). Conclusion : Compared to previous versions of the same course taught by the same instructor, the students in the new course design performed better, suggesting that using active learning techniques helps improve student achievement.

Identifiers

PMID23964739
PMCPMC3791902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.