↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Applying team-based learning of diagnostics for undergraduate students: assessing teaching effectiveness by a randomized controlled trial study

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Applying team-based learning of diagnostics for undergraduate students: assessing teaching effectiveness by a randomized controlled trial study
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s127626
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rui Zeng, Lian-rui Xiang, Jing Zeng, Chuan Zuo

Abstract

We aimed to introduce team-based learning (TBL) as one of the teaching methods for diagnostics and to compare its teaching effectiveness with that of the traditional teaching methods. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on diagnostics teaching involving 111 third-year medical undergraduates, using TBL as the experimental intervention, compared with lecture-based learning as the control, for teaching the two topics of symptomatology. Individual Readiness Assurance Test (IRAT)-baseline and Group Readiness Assurance Test (GRAT) were performed in members of each TBL subgroup. The scores in Individual Terminal Test 1 (ITT1) immediately after class and Individual Terminal Test 2 (ITT2) 1 week later were compared between the two groups. The questionnaire and interview were also implemented to survey the attitude of students and teachers toward TBL. There was no significant difference between the two groups in ITT1 (19.85±4.20 vs 19.70±4.61), while the score of the TBL group was significantly higher than that of the control group in ITT2 (19.15±3.93 vs 17.46±4.65). In the TBL group, the scores of the two terminal tests after the teaching intervention were significantly higher than the baseline test score of individuals. IRAT-baseline, ITT1, and ITT2 scores of students at different academic levels in the TBL teaching exhibited significant differences, but the ITT1-IRAT-baseline and ITT2-IRAT-baseline indicated no significant differences among the three subgroups. Our TBL in symptomatology approach was highly accepted by students in the improvement of interest and self-directed learning and resulted in an increase in knowledge acquirements, which significantly improved short-term test scores compared with lecture-based learning. TBL is regarded as an effective teaching method worthy of promoting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 38%
Psychology 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,777,600
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,692
of 325,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them