Claims

Students were generally satisfied with the PBL approach across the included studies

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · 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? Most included studies carried out satisfaction questionnaires alongside final examinations, and students were generally satisfied with the PBL approach. → 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

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Descriptive synthesis of study characteristics across the nine included studies, whose questionnaire items varied. The article reports only that "students were satisfied with the PBL approach", with no pooled satisfaction effect size.

"Most studies not only included the final examination results of both groups but also carried out a corresponding questionnaire, whose specific items varied in the included studies. Generally, students were satisfied with the PBL approach."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.