Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Phadtare, A
dc.contributor.author Bahmani, A
dc.contributor.author Shah, A
dc.contributor.author Pietrobon, R
dc.coverage.spatial England
dc.date.accessioned 2011-06-21T17:29:38Z
dc.date.issued 2009-05-27
dc.identifier http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473511
dc.identifier 1472-6920-9-27
dc.identifier.citation BMC Med Educ, 2009, 9 pp. 27 - ?
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/4364
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing. METHODS: Forty eight participants from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from US and Brazil were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 24 per group): An on-line writing workshop group (on-line group), in which participants used virtual communication, google docs and standard writing templates, and a standard writing guidance training (standard group) where participants received standard instruction without the aid of virtual communication and writing templates. Two outcomes, manuscript quality was assessed using the scores obtained in Six subgroup analysis scale as the primary outcome measure, and satisfaction scores with Likert scale were evaluated. To control for observer variability, inter-observer reliability was assessed using Fleiss's kappa. A post-hoc analysis comparing rates of communication between mentors and participants was performed. Nonparametric tests were used to assess intervention efficacy. RESULTS: Excellent inter-observer reliability among three reviewers was found, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) agreement = 0.931882 and ICC consistency = 0.932485. On-line group had better overall manuscript quality (p = 0.0017, SSQSavg score 75.3 +/- 14.21, ranging from 37 to 94) compared to the standard group (47.27 +/- 14.64, ranging from 20 to 72). Participant satisfaction was higher in the on-line group (4.3 +/- 0.73) compared to the standard group (3.09 +/- 1.11) (p = 0.001). The standard group also had fewer communication events compared to the on-line group (0.91 +/- 0.81 vs. 2.05 +/- 1.23; p = 0.0219). CONCLUSION: Our protocol for on-line scientific writing instruction is better than standard face-to-face instruction in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction. Future studies should evaluate the protocol efficacy in larger longitudinal cohorts involving participants from different languages.
dc.format.extent 27 - ?
dc.language ENG
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.relation.ispartof BMC Med Educ
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1186/1472-6920-9-27
dc.subject Adult
dc.subject Brazil
dc.subject Female
dc.subject Health Personnel
dc.subject Humans
dc.subject Internet
dc.subject Male
dc.subject Science
dc.subject Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject Teaching
dc.subject United States
dc.subject Writing
dc.subject Young Adult
dc.title Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.
dc.title.alternative en_US
dc.type Journal Article
dc.description.version Version of Record en_US
duke.date.pubdate 2009-5-27 en_US
duke.description.endpage 27 en_US
duke.description.issue en_US
duke.description.startpage 27 en_US
duke.description.volume 9 en_US
dc.relation.journal Bmc Medical Education en_US
pubs.author-url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473511
pubs.organisational-group /Duke
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Faculty
pubs.publication-status Published online
pubs.volume 9
dc.identifier.eissn 1472-6920

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record