Table 2

Quality criteria for evaluating studies

Studies

Completeness

Scientific quality of study design

Reliability of evaluation instrument

Score

Grading


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Halbach 2005

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

8

moderate

Madigosky 2006

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

8

moderate

Moskowitz 2007

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

moderate

Anderson 2009

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

10

high

Patey 2009

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

8

moderate

Paxton 2009

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

moderate

Gunderson 2009

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

moderate


1: Is the study purpose easily identified? 2: Are objectives congruent with intervention and evaluation? 3: Is study design appropriate for question? 4: Is study design described in sufficient detail to be replicated? 5: Are teaching methods described in enough detail to replicate? 6: Are statistical tests described? 7: Are raters blinded with respect to group assignment? 8: Is there a similar comparison group? 9: Are confounding variables controlled-for by design or analyses? 10: Has power analysis been conducted to determine sample size? 11: Is the course design assessed? 12: Are long term effects assessed? 13: Is reliability of instruments reported? 14: Is validity of instruments reported? Rating scale: Yes = 1; NO = 0

Nie et al. BMC Medical Education 2011 11:33   doi:10.1186/1472-6920-11-33

Open Data