ArticleBMC medical education2025
Investigation of the relationship between learning preferences and information acquisition and processing processes of physiotherapy and rehabilitation department students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (DPR) provides both theoretical and practical education, requiring students to engage in diverse learning processes. While learning preferences and information processing have been studied separately in health sciences, their relationship in DPR students remains unexplored. This study investigates this relationship by assessing learning preferences with the Grasha-Riechmann Learning Style Survey (GRLSS) and measuring information acquisition and processing with the Felder and Soloman Index of Learning Styles (ILS).
objectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between the learning preferences of physiotherapy and rehabilitation students and their processes of information acquisition and processing.
methodsIn this descriptive cross-sectional study, 377 students from the DPR were evaluated. A data recording form was used to collect information on the students' age, gender, and year of study/program. Their cumulative grade point average (CGPA) was recorded as a measure of academic performance. Learning preferences were evaluated using the GRLSS, while information acquisition and processing were measured using the Felder and Soloman ILS.
resultsA weak positive correlation was found between the collaborative sub-dimension of GRLSS and the active-reflective dimension of ILS (r = 0.228, p < 0.05). Gender-based analysis revealed a negative correlation between the avoidant sub-dimension of GRLSS and the sensing-intuitive of ILS dimension in females (r=-0.216, p < 0.05). In males, CGPA showed a weak correlation with the sensing-intuitive dimension (r = 0.200, p < 0.05). Students with low CGPA scored higher in the avoidant sub-dimension than those with high and very high CGPA (p = 0.011, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in ILS scores across CGPA groups.
conclusionsThis study investigated the relationship between DPR students' learning preferences and their processes of information acquisition and processing. While significant differences were found in GRLSS sub-dimensions among CGPA groups, no significant correlation was observed between GRLSS and ILS scores. Academic performance was associated with the avoidant sub-dimension of the GRLSS. These findings indicate that other factors may influence this interaction. To gain deeper insight into the complexity of learning preferences and information processing, further research with diverse methodologies is needed. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.