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

Why We Trust Some Studies More Than Others

Experimental Design domain · Lesson 3 of 20 · Biomedical Innovations (BI)

Today's goal: Students will rank common study designs in the evidence hierarchy and justify the ranking by how much bias each design controls, for both treatment questions and cause questions.

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.

Evidence-ranking note

Completes: A ranked list of four study designs with a one-line bias justification for each.

Ranking, weakest to strongest, for does earlier palate repair reduce later speech problems:

1 (weakest) Case report (Card A): no comparison group, so anything could explain one baby.
2 Case-control observational study (Card B): has a comparison, but exposure is not assigned and recall bias and confounding can mislead it.
3 Randomized controlled trial (Card C): chance assigns the groups, making them alike on average even on unmeasured factors, the strongest single study for a treatment question.
4 (strongest) Systematic review and meta-analysis (Card D): a registered, PRISMA-followed pooling of all the good trials, integrating the whole literature.

Impossible design for a cause question: the RCT (Card C) becomes impossible for does a particular medicine during pregnancy cause clefts, because you could never ethically assign a pregnant person to a suspected harmful exposure.

Also due today: Mark Card C as the design that flips from strongest treatment tool to impossible cause tool.

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: When two studies disagree, what about a study's design tells us which result to trust more?
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: Rank the four cards from least to most trustworthy for the question does earlier repair reduce later speech problems, writing one sentence per card naming the single biggest reason it sits where it does, then name which card's design becomes impossible to run for a cause question and why.
5Check it against the rubric, then submit.

How this is graded (rubric)

For: Rank the four cards from least to most trustworthy for the question does earlier palate repair reduce later speech problems, writing one sentence per card naming the single biggest reason it sits where it does, then name which card's design becomes impossible to run for a cause question and why.

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 "Rank the four cards from least to most trustworthy for the question does earlier palate repair reduce later speech problems, writing one sentence per card naming the single biggest reason it sits where it does, then name which card's design becomes impossible to run for a cause question and why.".
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: Evaluating evidence and experimental designSelf-check skill: Ranking study designs by how much bias each controls

For the treatment question of whether earlier palate repair reduces later speech problems, which study design provides the strongest single-study evidence, and why?

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

Back to this lesson