The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effectiveness of problem‐based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry
Abstract
Objectives A change from traditional to problem‐based learning (PBL) methods in a psychiatry attachment was evaluated by comparing the learning styles, attitudes to psychiatry and examination performance of 2 cohorts of students. It was hypothesised that the PBL curriculum would result in increased deep learning, decreased surface learning, more favourable attitudes to psychiatry and improved examination performance. It was predicted that students' examination success would be related to the use of deep and strategic learning and favourable attitudes. Methods Consecutive cohorts of Year 2 clinical students taught using a traditional psychiatry curriculum ( n = 188) and a PBL curriculum ( n = 191) were compared. Students completed the Study Process Questionnaire to assess their learning styles and the Attitudes to Psychiatry Scale at the beginning and end of the attachment. Students completed 2 end‐of‐attachment examinations, a multiple‐choice paper and a viva. Results The PBL curriculum resulted in significantly better examination performance than did the traditional teaching curriculum, both for multiple‐choice questions and the viva. No differences in learning styles or attitudes to psychiatry were found between the curricula. Students were significantly more successful in the examinations if they had received the PBL curriculum, were female, and used strategic learning. Conclusions Examination performance indicated that the PBL curriculum was more successful than the previous course, but that this improvement was not due to students using more effective learning styles or having more favourable attitudes towards psychiatry. It is possible that students learned more effectively during the teaching sessions in the PBL curriculum, but did not change their preferred learning styles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Factors associated with success in medical school: systematic review of the literature
Ferguson, E., James, D., & Madeley, L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7343.952 · Cited by 811
Cited by
(2008) · Australian journal of advanced nursing · Cited by 1,687
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001 · Cited by 885
Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: a review of the literature
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6 · Cited by 489
Trullàs, J. C., Blay, C., Sarri, E., & Pujol, R. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8 · Cited by 473
WPA guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists
SARTORIUS, N., GAEBEL, W., CLEVELAND, H.-R., STUART, H., AKIYAMA, T., ARBOLEDA-FLÓREZ, J., BAUMANN, A. E., GUREJE, O., JORGE, M. R., KASTRUP, M., et al. (2010) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2010.tb00296.x · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-07-23
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 859-867
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2148396560
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effectiveness of problem‐based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01818.x
- The paper
- McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem‐based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01818.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.