There were no significant differences in understanding ratings between MPH and PGD student groups¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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? Between-group comparison found no significant differences between the two student groups' understanding (Mann Whitney p > 0.05). → Bath-Hextall Fiona 2011
Evidence¶
Bath-Hextall Fiona 2011¶
Bath-Hextall Fiona, Wharrad Heather, Leonardi-Bee Jo. (2011). Teaching tools in Evidence Based Practice: evaluation of reusable learning objects (RLOs) for learning about Meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123313/
q2 · i? · design · r3
Between-group comparison of MPH and PGD understanding ratings using the Mann Whitney test; the article reports no significant difference and no effect size. Equivalence was not tested.
"There were no significant differences between the two student groups understanding (Mann Whitney 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.