The flipped classroom effect on knowledge scores does not differ significantly between RCT and observational study designs.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Metaregression found no significant relationship between study design (RCT vs observational) and effect size (coefficient 0.069, P=.79), and both designs showed large, similar effects (observational SMD 0.90; RCT SMD 0.93). → de Azevedo Cardoso T 2025

Evidence¶

de Azevedo Cardoso T 2025¶

de Azevedo Cardoso T, Aung H H, Yeh W-Y, Ozdamli F, Ignjatovic A, Spaic D, Bukumiric Z, Rajovic N, Markovic K, Savic M, Milin-Lazovic J, Grubor N, Milic N, Stanisavljevic D, Despotovic A, Bokonjic D, Vladicic Masic J, Janicijevic V, Masic S, Milic N. (2025). The Flipped Classroom in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/60757

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Univariate metaregression across 127 studies found no significant association between study design and effect size (P=.79). Both observational (SMD 0.90) and RCT (SMD 0.93) subgroups showed large, statistically significant effects favoring the flipped classroom.

"no significant relationship between study design (RCT or observational), knowledge assessment reporting (baseline/final vs final), having same versus different instructors in compared groups, study level (undergraduate vs postgraduate), duration (semester vs block), students’ age, sex, period (before, during, or after the COVID-19 pandemic), and the outcome (P>.05 for all analysis)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Baseline knowledge differences between flipped classroom and control groups are small and may inflate final knowledge effect estimates. — related
• Flipped classroom instruction is associated with higher final knowledge scores than traditional instruction in medical education (SMD 0.90). — related