Explaining computation of predictive values: 2 × 2 table versus frequency tree. A randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN74278823]
1 Unit of Health Sciences and Education, University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
2 Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science in Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
BMC Medical Education 2004, 4:13 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-4-13Published: 10 August 2004
Involving patients in decision making on diagnostic procedures requires a basic level of statistical thinking. However, innumeracy is prevalent even among physicians. In medical teaching the 2 × 2 table is widely used as a visual help for computations whereas in psychology the frequency tree is favoured. We assumed that the 2 × 2 table is more suitable to support computations of predictive values.
184 students without prior statistical training were randomised either to a step-by-step self-learning tutorial using the 2 × 2 table (n = 94) or the frequency tree (n = 90). During the training session students were instructed by two sample tasks and a total of five positive predictive values had to be computed. During a follow-up session 4 weeks later participants had to compute 5 different tasks of comparable degree of difficulty without having the tutorial instructions at their disposal. The primary outcome was the correct solution of the tasks.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. About 58% achieved correct solutions in 4–5 tasks following the training session and 26% in the follow-up examination.
These findings do not support the hypothesis that the 2 × 2 table is more valuable to facilitate the calculation of positive predictive values than the frequency tree.