Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40655177›Full record

ArticleJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience2025

Call for collaboration: Drafting a concept inventory for assessing neuroscience courses and curriculum.

Monica M Gaudier-Diaz, Mackenzie E Mitchell, Shveta V Parekh, Sabrina D Robertson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Monica M Gaudier-DiazDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Mackenzie E MitchellDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Shveta V ParekhDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Sabrina D RobertsonDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscience draws upon concepts from biology, chemistry, computer sciences, philosophy, physics, and psychology, to study the nervous system. Growth of this field is evidenced by the expansion of neuroscience programs, all of which undergo accreditation to ensure educational quality. Content knowledge is commonly assessed for accreditation, but a standardized instrument measuring neuroscience content knowledge is yet to be developed. To address this gap, we are leveraging the eight neuroscience core concepts identified by Chen and colleagues to design a Neuroscience Concept Inventory (NCI). As a first draft, we generated a 57-multiple choice question tool and distributed among students in an introductory neuroscience course and declared neuroscience majors at a large public R1- institution. Item discrimination scores determining the quality of items ranged from 0.65-0.10, with 48 falling within acceptable range (>0.20). Alpha reliability scores determining reliability of items within a core concept ranged from 0.77-0.51, with 4 falling within acceptable range (>0.70). To exemplify the utility of a NCI, we present an accreditation report case study. Utilizing the NCI draft we demonstrate learning gains in an Introduction to Neuroscience course and among neuroscience majors. Our project sets the groundwork for the continued development of a reliable tool that facilitates content knowledge assessment of neuroscience programs and courses. The interdisciplinary nature and diversity of neuroscience programs present a major challenge to the development of a comprehensive content knowledge tool. Thus, we share this first draft as a call to the neuroscience community to join us to iteratively improve the instrument through collaboration and feedback. Those wishing to collaborate for tool development, please fill out this Qualtrics Form.

Indexed as

AccreditationAssessmentConcept inventoryCore conceptsNeuroscience

Identifiers

PMID40655177
PMCPMC12243882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.