Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25616353›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2015

Characterization of medical students recall of factual knowledge using learning objects and repeated testing in a novel e-learning system.

Tiago Taveira-Gomes, Rui Prado-Costa, Milton Severo, Maria Amélia Ferreira

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Support for learning under naturalistic conditions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tiago Taveira-GomesDepartment of Medical Education and Simulation, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. tiago.taveira@me.com.
Rui Prado-CostaALERT Life Sciences Computing, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal. rcosta4540@gmail.com.
Milton SeveroDepartment of Medical Education and Simulation, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. milton@med.up.pt.
Maria Amélia FerreiraDepartment of Medical Education and Simulation, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. mameliaferreira@med.up.pt.
Universidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpaced-repetition and test-enhanced learning are two methodologies that boost knowledge retention. ALERT STUDENT is a platform that allows creation and distribution of Learning Objects named flashcards, and provides insight into student judgments-of-learning through a metric called 'recall accuracy'. This study aims to understand how the spaced-repetition and test-enhanced learning features provided by the platform affect recall accuracy, and to characterize the effect that students, flashcards and repetitions exert on this measurement.

methodsThree spaced laboratory sessions (s0, s1 and s2), were conducted with n=96 medical students. The intervention employed a study task, and a quiz task that consisted in mentally answering open-ended questions about each flashcard and grading recall accuracy. Students were randomized into study-quiz and quiz groups. On s0 both groups performed the quiz task. On s1 and s2, the study-quiz group performed the study task followed by the quiz task, whereas the quiz group only performed the quiz task. We measured differences in recall accuracy between groups/sessions, its variance components, and the G-coefficients for the flashcard component.

resultsAt s0 there were no differences in recall accuracy between groups. The experiment group achieved a significant increase in recall accuracy that was superior to the quiz group in s1 and s2. In the study-quiz group, increases in recall accuracy were mainly due to the session, followed by flashcard factors and student factors. In the quiz group, increases in recall accuracy were mainly accounted by flashcard factors, followed by student and session factors. The flashcard G-coefficient indicated an agreement on recall accuracy of 91% in the quiz group, and of 47% in the study-quiz group.

conclusionsRecall accuracy is an easily collectible measurement that increases the educational value of Learning Objects and open-ended questions. This metric seems to vary in a way consistent with knowledge retention, but further investigation is necessary to ascertain the nature of such relationship. Recall accuracy has educational implications to students and educators, and may contribute to deliver tailored learning experiences, assess the effectiveness of instruction, and facilitate research comparing blended-learning interventions.

Indexed as

Retention, PsychologyAdolescentAdultComputer-Assisted InstructionCurriculumEducational MeasurementEducation, MedicalFemaleGolgi ApparatusHumansMalePilot ProjectsPortugalPractice, PsychologicalSoftwareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25616353
PMCPMC4326410
OpenAlexW1996637844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.