Claims

Item-level gains concentrated on neurotransmitter and receptor questions that could be physically acted out

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Questions three through eight (parasympathetic system at rest, neurotransmitters at rest and exercise, β1 receptor activation, M receptor location, β1 receptor location) showed significantly higher odds of correct answering at posttest and follow-up versus pretest (p < 0.05). → Dowlati 2016

Evidence

Dowlati 2016

Dowlati, E., Musick, D. W., Zhang, L., Thornton, K., & Carvalho, H. (2016). Use of Dramatization to Teach Cardiac Cycle Physiology to Medical Students. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i9.1603

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Logistic mixed-effect modeling of the probability of a correct answer per item across the three assessments. The article reports significant odds increases for the six neurotransmitter/receptor items with "p < 0.05" and no effect size printed.

"For both groups, questions three throug h eight yielded significant differences with the odds of correctly answering those questions statistically significantly higher in both immediate posttest and six month follow-up tests, compared with pre-test (p < 0.05)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.