OBJECTIVE: To compare a three steps (3S) vs. two steps (2S) active participative promoting strategies (APPS) in critical reading of research papers in first degree residents. METHODS: An APPS educational intervention in 3S vs. 2S was developed. Two groups by simple random technique were study. The experimental group (A) with 13 residents and a control group (B) with 12. Three indicators were use (interpretation, judgement and proposal). The instrument had 120 items. In both groups, the educational strategies used were similar in contents. In-group A (3S) the subgroup discussion was emphasized. Group discussion and the resolution of extra classroom item guides performed was similar in both groups. Non parametric statistical tests were performed by a blind researcher. RESULTS: The reliability of the instrument was 0.89 by Kuder-Richardson procedure. The initial results were very low and showed an increase in the median in both groups. More students in-group A were located out of a random category. In both groups, Mc Nemar test results were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The 3S strategy is better than 2S in developing critical reading in research papers.
|Título traducido de la contribución||Influence of sub-group discussion on the developing skills for critical reading of research papers|
|Número de páginas||6|
|Publicación||Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social|
|Estado||Published - 2009|
|Publicado de forma externa||Sí|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Medicina (todo)