Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised
Lola Fourcade1, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher
1Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, UFR de Médecine, Paris, France.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT).
Design:
Paired randomised controlled trial.
Participants:
Clinicians and systematic reviewers.
Interventions:
We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training.
Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT.
Results:
Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (-5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%).
Conclusions:
Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct.
Related Concept Videos
Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation
Nurses can use several methods to evaluate patient outcomes. For example, oral questions can assess cognitive learning, patient...
Quality Control
Quality control helps track data, visualize trends, and identify variations, making it easier to detect deviations that may affect the accuracy of an analysis. One way to do this is by generating a quality control chart, which...
Quality Assurance
Cochran's Q Test
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
