ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2017
Engagement as predictors of performance in a single cohort of undergraduate chiropractic students.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Admissions criteria as predictors of first-term success at a chiropractic institution.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2020Article
- Scarlet letters: The association of alternative admissions track plan status with key programmatic outcomes in a chiropractic training program.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the potential association of novel academic and nonacademic factors with chiropractic student academic performance.
methodsStudents enrolled into year 1 of a chiropractic master's degree (MChiro) at our college were selected for this study. Data collected included demographics, attendance, virtual learning environment use, additional learning needs, previous degree qualifications, and summative marks. Differences between students who had to take an examination more than once (resit) and nonresit students were explored using t test and χ
resultsMale students outperformed female students in four of the six units and as the total year average. Students who attended <80% of classes were more likely to have a resit in one or more units (relative risk [ RR] = 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.9). Students who performed poorly (<70%) in the semester 1 unit of a course on human structure and failed the semester 1 practical assessment of a course on clinical management were significantly more likely to have one or more resit assessments in semester 2 units ( RR = 3.5 [95% CI, 2.2-5.7]; RR = 3.2 [95% CI, 2.0-4.9]). Attendance and unit 105 were independent predictors of one or more resits at the end-of-year ( R
conclusionAttendance and first semester summative marks were associated with end-of-year performance. As such, these markers of performance may be used to flag struggling students in the program.
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.