Skip to main content

Table 4 Perceived value of learning resources as reported by students at the end of their attachment.

From: Limitations of student-driven formative assessment in a clinical clerkship. A randomised controlled trial

  Perceived value of resources (very valuable = 1, valuable = 2, little value = 3, no value = 4)
Group Texts1 Journal (Paper) Journal (Web) Ward Lectures Tutorials Interactive aids1 Internet (non-journal) Other
A 12 [1-1] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2] 2 [1–2] 2 [2-2] 1 [1-1] 2 [2–3] 3 [2–3] 2 [2–4]
B 1 [1-1] 2 [2–3] 1.5 [1–2] 2 [1–2] 2 [2-2] 1 [1–2] 3 [2–3] 3 [2–3] 2.5 [1–3]
C 1[1-1] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2] 2 [2-2] 2 [1–2] 1 [1-1] 23,4 [1–3] 2 [2–3] 3 [2–3]
D 1 [1-1] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2] 2 [1–3] 2 [1–2] 1 [1–2] 23 [2–3] 2 [–-3] 3 [3–4]
All groups 1 [1-1] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2] 2 [1–2] 2 [1–2] 1 [1–2] 2 [2–3] 2 [2–3] 3 [2–3]
  1. 1 = very valuable, 2 = valuable, 3 = little value, 4 = no value Results are expressed as median [interquartile range]
  2. 1 Significant difference between groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.05)
  3. 2 Significant difference between this group and all other groups (One way ANOVA on Ranks, Fishers LSD post hoc test, p < 0.05)
  4. 3 Significant difference between this group and Group B. (One way ANOVA on Ranks, Fishers LSD post hoc test, p < 0.05)
  5. 4 Significant difference between this group and Group A. (One way ANOVA on Ranks, Fishers LSD post hoc test, p < 0.05)