ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2017
Requiring students to justify answer changes during collaborative testing may be necessary for improved academic performance.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Restructuring of an evidence-based practice curriculum and assessment with structural mapping by course outcome verb.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2022Article
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
objectiveThree hypotheses were tested in a chiropractic education program: (1) Collaborative topic-specific exams during a course would enhance student performance on a noncollaborative final exam administered at the end-of-term, compared to students given traditional (noncollaborative) topic-specific exams during the course. (2) Requiring reasons for answer changes during collaborative topical exams would further enhance final-exam performance. (3) There would be a differential question-type effect on the cumulative final exam, with greater improvement in comprehension question scores compared to simple recall question scores.
methodsA total of 223 students participated in the study. Students were assigned to 1 of 2 study cohorts: (1) control - a traditional, noncollaborative, exam format; (2) collaborative exam only (CEO) - a collaborative format, not requiring answer change justification; and (3) collaborative exam with justification (CEJ) - a collaborative exam format, but requiring justification for answer changes.
resultsContrary to expectation (hypothesis 1), there was no significant difference between control and CEO final exam scores (p = .566). However, CEJ final exam scores were statistically greater (hypothesis 2) than the control (p = .010) and CEO (p = .011) scores. There was greater collaboration benefit when answering comprehension than recall questions during topic-specific exams (p = .000), but this did not differentially influence study cohort final exam scores (p = .571, hypothesis 3).
conclusionWe conclude that test collaboration with the requirement that students explain the reason for making answer changes is a more effective learning tool than simple collaboration that does not require answer change justification.
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.