iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8323649
Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 1993 Jul;68(7):550-63.
doi: 10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015.

Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research

D T Vernon  1 , R L Blake
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research

D T Vernon et al. Acad Med. 1993 Jul.

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to synthesize all available evaluative research from 1970 through 1992 that compares problem-based learning (PBL) with more traditional methods of medical education. Five separate meta-analyses were performed on 35 studies representing 19 institutions. For 22 of the studies (representing 14 institutions), both effect-size and supplementary vote-count analyses could be performed; otherwise, only supplementary analyses were performed. PBL was found to be significantly superior with respect to students' program evaluations (i.e., students' attitudes and opinions about their programs)--dw (standardized differences between means, weighted by sample size) = +.55, CI.95 = +.40 to +.70 - and measures of students' clinical performance (dw = +.28, CI.95 = +.16 to +.40). PBL and traditional methods did not differ on miscellaneous tests of factual knowledge (dw = -.09, CI.95 = +.06 to -.24) and tests of clinical knowledge (dw = +.08, CI.95 = -.05 to +.21). Traditional students performed significantly better than their PBL counterparts on the National Board of Medical Examiners Part I examination--NBME I (dw = -.18, CI.95 = -.10 to -.26). However, the NBME I data displayed significant overall heterogeneity (Qt = 192.23, p < .001) and significant differences among programs (Qb = 59.09, p < .001), which casts doubt on the generality of the findings across programs. The comparative value of PBL is also supported by data on outcomes that have been studied less frequently, i.e., faculty attitudes, student mood, class attendance, academic process variables, and measures of humanism. In conclusion, the results generally support the superiority of the PBL approach over more traditional methods. Acad. Med. 68 (1993):550-563.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

LinkOut - more resources