Claims

Both video-based tools and interactive modules show beneficial effects on assessment outcomes, with interactive modules showing the larger pooled mean difference

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.

q3 i? Video tools showed a beneficial effect with a mean difference of 1.64 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.06), while interactive modules showed a beneficial effect with a mean difference of 2.27 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.25). → McGee RG 2024

Evidence

McGee RG 2024

McGee RG, Wark S, Mwangi F, Drovandi A, Alele F, Malau-Aduli BS, The ACHIEVE Collaboration. (2024). Digital learning of clinical skills and its impact on medical students’ academic performance: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06471-2

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup meta-analysis by intervention type reported in the review's results (Fig. 2 forest plot). Videos and interactive modules each favour digital teaching, with the printed mean differences of 1.64 and 2.27 respectively; the review notes "a high amount of statistical heterogeneity in the results".

"Overall video tools showed a beneficial effect with a mean difference of 1.64 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.06), while interactive modules showed a beneficial effect with a mean difference of 2.27 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.25)."

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.