Observational studyJournal of dental education2022
An observational study of learning effects of peer-assisted learning tests in COVID-19 pandemic times.
Observational study in Journal of dental education, 2022. 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.
- An observational study of learning effects of peer-assisted learning tests in COVID-19 pandemic times.Journal of dental education · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine whether peer-assisted learning (PAL) is a more effective learning and test method in terms of oral- and maxillofacial surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn July 2020, a total of 267 students took a PAL-based exam on fictional patients with surgical issues, in which they had to evaluate two fellow students and were themselves evaluated by two fellow students. The students evaluated their experience with the PAL-based exam through a questionnaire which consisted of five given statements (answer possibilities: agree, disagree, neutral) and two questions (answer possibilities: better, equal, worse) to rate.
resultsIn the survey, 77.9% of the students rated PAL as a better learning method and 21% rated it as at least equally effective to the known multiple-choice (MC) test. A total of 74.9% of the students indicated that they learned more content with PAL and 20.2% said they learned the same amount; 83.7% said that their "clinical thinking has improved" through PAL. In the comments, 73% of the students noted that they think PAL is a good learning method, and at least 22% rated it as useful but in need of improvements. Only 5% did not see PAL as an acceptable learning method. In contrast to this, 1.3% saw PAL as a "bad alternative to MC tests."
conclusionPAL, especially peer assessment, might represent a better learning method as it might encourage students to deal more intensively with the learning content and to improve clinical thinking.
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.