ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2025
Tools for coordinating measurement use in science education and training.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The improvement of existing science education interventions and the development of new ones requires cohesive, large-scale evaluation and testing that inform what works, for whom, and in what context. Systems approaches to design, implement, and evaluate interventions require knowledge, skills, and expertise in studying humans alongside the lived experiences and positionality of biological science leaders and practitioners who may not have the necessary social science background to do so. Developing a shared understanding of evaluation design and measurement use is an important component toward fostering interdisciplinary collaboration for the improvement of our education and training interventions. In this perspective, we argue that the coordinated use of common measures benefits individual interventions, as well as consortia and collaborative groups that make use of them. We provide examples of consortia and partnerships that make use of common measures within and across programs for evaluation and research. We then describe existing common measure tools and libraries that foster the coordination of common measures. Finally, we suggest next steps to improve tools for use by the broader science education and training research community.
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.