Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312805›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2023

Effectiveness of a question formulation rubric with second-year medical students: a randomized controlled trial.

Jonathan D Eldredge, Melissa A Schiff, Jens O Langsjoen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Jonathan D Eldredgejeldredge@salud.unm.edu, Professor, Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, Department of Family & Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Melissa A Schiffmschiff@salud.unm.edu, Professor. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Jens O Langsjoenjlangsjoen@salud.unm.edu, Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The FAC (Focus, Amplify, Compose) rubric for assessing medical students' question formulation skills normally accompanies our Evidence Based Practice (EBP) training. The combined training and assessment rubric have improved student scores significantly. How much does the rubric itself contribute to improved student scores? This study sought to measure student improvement using the rubric either with or without a linked 25-minute training session. Methods: Randomized Controlled Trial. The authors tested the hypothesis that a 25-minute training session combined with use of a rubric would lead to higher scores than a brief explanation of this rubric alone. All 72 participating second-year medical students had a question formulation rubric briefly explained to them following a pre-test. Students in the intervention groups were taught how to formulate EBP questions for 25 minutes using the rubric followed with another 30 minutes of EBP search training. Students in the control group only received the 30 minutes of EBP search training in their small group labs. All 72 students took the post-test in which they formulated a question in response to a clinical vignette. Statistical analysis to test the hypothesis consisted of a two-sample paired t-test to measure between-group differences. Discussion: Both the intervention and control groups performed significantly better on the post-test for question formulation skills than on the pre-test. When analyzed by extent of individual improvement between pre- and post-tests using a two-sample paired t-test for between group differences, the control group students receiving only a brief explanation of the rubric performed the same statistically (intervention 37.7 versus 37.4 control) as the intervention group students who received the same brief explanation followed by a 25-minute active learning training session. Thus, the results provided no support of the hypothesis that the extra 25-minute training improved post-test scores. The rubric itself contributed similarly to the intervention groups students' improvement as the combined rubric and training for control group students. This finding could potentially save scarce curricular time. Key Messages: The FAC question formulation rubric and training significantly improves medical students' EBP question quality. The FAC rubric coupled with only a 5-minute explanation can be effective. In a crowded medical school curriculum, the rubric and brief explanation might save valued time for other purposes.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalCurriculumHumansProblem-Based LearningResearch DesignSchools, MedicalEducational MeasurementEvidence Based PracticeMedical EducationQuestion FormulationScoring Rubrics

Identifiers

PMID37312805
PMCPMC10259616

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.