PBL is associated with significantly higher total medical psychology examination scores than traditional lecture-based teaching in China (Hedges' g = 1.510)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Across nine included studies, students taught with PBL scored significantly higher on total medical psychology examinations than students taught with traditional lecture-based teaching (Hedges' g = 1.510, 95%CI 0.792–2.227, p<0.001, random effect model). → Gao Junwei 2020

Evidence¶

Gao Junwei 2020¶

Gao Junwei, Yang Ling, Zhao Jinghui, Wang Lian, Zou Jiao, Wang Chunxiang, Fan Xiaotang. (2020). Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243897

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies (551 cases, 496 controls) comparing PBL with traditional lecture-based teaching in Chinese medical psychology courses, pooling Hedges' g under a random effect model. The pooled estimate was "Hedges’ g = 1.510" with a significant difference favoring PBL.

"the combined results of the overall comparison revealed a significant difference in the total examination scores of students in favor of the PBL approach, compared with traditional teaching under the random effect model (Hedges’ g = 1.510, 95%CI 0.792–2.227, p<0.001)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Case-based learning yields significantly higher psychology exam scores than lecture-based teaching, with a pooled Hedges' g of 0.68 under a random effects model — related
• In the clinical medicine subgroup, PBL students' total examination scores were significantly higher than controls (Hedges' g = 2.086) — related
• In the five-year school system subgroup, PBL students' total examination scores were significantly higher than controls (Hedges' g = 1.571) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• After removing five outlying studies identified by Galbraith plot, the PBL advantage persisted with low heterogeneity (Hedges' g = 0.592, I2 = 26.807%) — related
• No single study affected the statistically significant PBL advantage in sensitivity analysis — related
• Students were generally satisfied with the PBL approach across the included studies — related