Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

Thumbnail
View / Download
333.1 Kb
Date
2009-05-27
Authors
Phadtare, A
Bahmani, A
Shah, A
Pietrobon, R
Repository Usage Stats
312
views
298
downloads
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.
Type
Journal article
Subject
Adult
Brazil
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Internet
Male
Science
Surveys and Questionnaires
Teaching
United States
Writing
Young Adult
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4364
Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1186/1472-6920-9-27
Publication Info
Phadtare, A; Bahmani, A; Shah, A; & Pietrobon, R (2009). Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Med Educ, 9. pp. 27. 10.1186/1472-6920-9-27. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4364.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
  • Scholarly Articles
More Info
Show full item record
Open Access

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy

Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University