ArticleClinical and translational science2014
Initial external validation of REGRESS in public health graduate students.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Linear regression is typically taught as a second and potentially last required (bio)statistics course for Public Health and Clinical and Translational Science students. There has been much research on the attitudes of students toward basic biostatistics, but there has not been much assessing students' understanding of critical regression topics. The REGRESS (REsearch on Global Regression Expectations in StatisticS) quiz developed at Mayo Clinic utilizes 27 questions to assess understanding for simple and multiple linear regression. We performed an initial external validation of this tool with 117 University of Michigan public health students. We compare the results of pre- and postcourse quiz scores from the Michigan cohort to scores of Mayo medical students and professional statisticians. University of Michigan students performed higher than Mayo students on the precourse quiz due to previous related coursework, but did not perform as high postcourse indicating the need for course modification. In the Michigan cohort, REGRESS scores improved by a mean (standard deviation) of 4.6 (3.4), p < 0.0001. Our results support the use of the REGRESS quiz as a learning tool for students and an evaluation tool to identify topics for curricular improvement for teachers, while we highlight future directions of research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.