Students perform significantly higher on the team portion of the Readiness Assessment Test than on the individual portion in a TBL laboratory module¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Students scored 24.9% higher on the team RAT than on the individual RAT, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001). → Peterson 2015

Evidence¶

Peterson 2015¶

Peterson, E.K. and Carrico, P. (2015). Laboratory Exercise in Behavioral Genetics Using Team-based Learning Strategies. Bioscene 41(2). https://visionandchange.org/files/2011/03/Revised-Vision-and-Change-Final-Report.pdf

q2 · i? · design · r2

Quasi-experimental comparison within two sections of a junior/senior-level Behavioral Genetics laboratory (approximately 21-24 students per section). Paired-Samples T-Test compared individual RAT averages to team RAT averages; the article reports students "performed significantly higher (p < 0.0001)" on the team portion, scoring 24.9% higher.

"We found that students performed significantly higher (p < 0.0001, see Figure 4A) on the team RAT, in comparison to the individual portion; students scored 24.9% higher on the team portion."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does the team readiness test raise scores above the individual one? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 4 narrower claims that bear on it: 3 distinct studies (1 design, 1 causal, 1 associational), q1–q2, 0 of 3 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Study	Design	Effect as recorded	Bears on this claim through
Peterson 2015	q2 · design · r2	i?	this claim; Both course sections show the same team-over-individual RAT trend despite a significant di (supports); After the TBL module, students were better prepared to design and implement independent fi (qualifies)
Cynthia J. Miller 2015	q2 · causal · r1	i?	In both TBL formats, tRAT and iSAT scores significantly improve over preceding iRAT scores (supports)
Bell 2022	q1 · associational · r1	i?	Students' IRAT scores were consistently poorer than their TRAT scores, suggesting team col (supports)

Discussion¶

Both course sections show the same team-over-individual RAT trend despite a significant difference in scores between the sections — related
After the TBL module, students were better prepared to design and implement independent final research projects — related
Students report significantly higher accountability, preference for TBL, satisfaction, and total scores than neutral after the TBL module — related
In both TBL formats, tRAT and iSAT scores significantly improve over preceding iRAT scores — related
Dental students in a revised TBL format and medical students in the original format performed similarly on iRAT and tRAT sessions, in a non-randomised comparison of two cohorts — related
Students' IRAT scores were consistently poorer than their TRAT scores, suggesting team collaboration benefits team test performance — a broader claim this one bears on

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`team-rat-scores-higher-than-individual-rat`
`title`	`Students perform significantly higher on the team portion of the Readiness Assessment Test than on the individual portion in a TBL laboratory module`
`description`	`Students perform significantly higher on the team portion of the Readiness Assessment Test than on the individual portion in a TBL laboratory module`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2015`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-02`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `peterson-2015`

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