Claims

Student expertise level and course type explain heterogeneity in PBL+LBL versus LBL effects

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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.

q2 i? Meta-regression identified the expertise-level of students and course type as the factors causing heterogeneity among the included trials. → Liu CX 2020

Evidence

Liu CX 2020

Liu CX, Ouyang WW, Wang XW, Chen D, Jiang ZL. (2020). Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL + LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019687

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-regression across the included RCTs reported in the abstract and results; the article states "expertise-level of students and course type were the factors that caused heterogeneity". No regression coefficients are printed in the supplied text.

"The meta-regression results showed that expertise-level of students and course type were the factors that caused heterogeneity."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.