Four common pitfalls of quantitative analysis in experimental research

Jimmie Leppink, Ellen M. Kok, Esther M. Bergman, Mariëtte H. Van Loon, Anique B.H. De Bruin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

A recently published AM Last Page presents five common methodological pitfalls of experimental research in medical education. 1 In this Last Page, we present four statistical pitfalls and their more appropriate alternatives. Pitfalls are illustrated with a case of a fictitious researcher who conducts a study with elements that are common in many medical education experiments (Figure 1). assistant professor, Mariëtte H. van Loon, PhD, assistant professor, and Anique B.H. de Bruin, PhD, associate professor, Maastricht University References 1. Van Loon MH, Kok EM, Kamp RJA, et al. AM Last Page: Avoiding five common pitfalls of experimental research in medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88:1588. 2. Leppink J, Paas F, Van Gog T, Van der Vleuten CPM, Van Merriënboer JJG. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learn Instr. 2014;30:32–43. 3. Van Breukelen GJP. ANCOVA versus change from baseline has more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)891
Number of pages1
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume91
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Four common pitfalls of quantitative analysis in experimental research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this