Rough draft.This research track is under review with Dr. Atit's lab. Content and sequence may still change.

Here's an example of what's due today

How Does the World Check That a Study Is Trustworthy?

Experimental Design domain · Lesson 19 of 20 · Biomedical Innovations (BI)

Today's goal: Explain how reproducibility, reporting standards (CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies), and peer review let outsiders check a study, and use a reporting checklist to spot what a weak paper left out.

Learn first

What a finished product looks like

This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.

CONSORT gap analysis

Completes: A reviewer's list of missing CONSORT items and one properly reported rewrite.

1. Missing items: no sample size or power justification; no statement of whether or how children were randomized; no statement of whether assessors were blinded; no single pre-defined primary outcome; and a result given as 'looked big' instead of an effect size with a confidence interval.

2. Why untrustworthy: A peer reviewer cannot check a study whose methods are absent; an unreported step is, to the outside world, the same as a missing step, so the claim cannot be judged or repeated.

3. Rewrite (result with uncertainty, TOPS-style): 'Velopharyngeal insufficiency at age 5 occurred in 8.9% of the early-repair group versus 15.0% of the later group (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99).'

Learn first

How this was built, step by step

The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.

1Start from today's question: Once a study is finished, how does the rest of the world check whether it is actually trustworthy?
2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
4Write it up in the required format: A draft paper crosses your desk: 'We operated on some babies with clefts at different ages and the early ones spoke better. The difference looked big.' As Science Writer: (1) name three things a CONSORT-style standard requires that this paper left out; (2) explain why a peer reviewer could not trust this paper as written; (3) rewrite the sentence so it reports one missing item properly (, randomization, , or the result with a ), using TOPS as your model.
5Check it against the rubric, then submit.

How this is graded (rubric)

For: A draft cleft paper crosses your desk: 'We operated on some babies with clefts at different ages and the early ones spoke better. The difference looked big.' As Science Writer: (1) name three things a CONSORT-style standard requires that this paper left out; (2) explain why a peer reviewer could not trust this paper as written; (3) rewrite the sentence so it reports one missing item properly (sample size, randomization, blinding, or the result with a confidence interval), using TOPS as your model.

Criterion	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Complete	Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in.	Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank.	Several parts are missing.
Accurate	The science and data are correct and match the evidence.	Mostly correct, with a small factual slip.	Key science or data is wrong.
Scientific reasoning (CER)	States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning.	Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing.	Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning.
Professional communication	Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it.	Readable but disorganized or missing labels.	Hard to follow.
Submitted	Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed.	Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed.	Not turned in.

How the model answer scores against this rubric

CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "A draft cleft paper crosses your desk: 'We operated on some babies with clefts at different ages and the early ones spoke better. The difference looked big.' As Science Writer: (1) name three things a CONSORT-style standard requires that this paper left out; (2) explain why a peer reviewer could not trust this paper as written; (3) rewrite the sentence so it reports one missing item properly (sample size, randomization, blinding, or the result with a confidence interval), using TOPS as your model.".
AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.

Check yourself

WebXam problem for today's skill

One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.

WebXam-style domain: Experimental design and data analysisSelf-check skill: Matching a study type to its reporting standard and judging completeness

A paper reporting a randomized controlled trial omits how patients were randomized, whether assessors were blinded, and any sample-size justification. Which statement best captures the problem?

Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.

Back to this lesson