Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Comparing structured note-taking and multiple-choice question writing as learning strategies among physiotherapy students.
Trial report 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe education of health professionals plays a crucial role in developing the competence-based learning that is essential for their future practice. Increased student engagement and participation has been shown to significantly enhance academic achievement compared to passive knowledge integration during lectures or tutorials. However, the effectiveness of different learning strategies can vary depending on the individual and the context. This study investigated the impact of note-taking and generating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on physiotherapy students' performance in summative examinations, as well as their preferences for using these methods.
methodsA cluster-randomised controlled crossover study was conducted among first-year undergraduate physiotherapy students enrolled in a psychology course at a Polish medical university. The study included 173 students (116 females, 57 males), aged 18-23 years. Following the psychology module, students completed a homework assignment, either a written note or an MCQ, which was subsequently reviewed by instructors. These materials were intended to support students' preparation for the final psychology examination. The effectiveness of each method as a tool for knowledge consolidation was evaluated using summative exam scores. Additionally, students provided qualitative feedback on their preferred learning method via an open-ended question.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference at the 5% level in students' summative exam performance between the two learning methods. Overall, students expressed a preference for note-taking over the MCQ format, citing greater familiarity due to its use during their secondary education. However, students who began the learning process with the MCQ method demonstrated a slightly higher preference for that approach.
conclusionsGiven the diversity of student preferences, the integration of note-taking and MCQ learning methods may optimise the educational experience in psychology training. Further research should investigate their equivalence, taking into account students' choice of learning method.
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.