Item-level gains concentrated on neurotransmitter and receptor questions that could be physically acted out¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·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¶
Related Claims¶
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.