| Literature DB >> 22151539 |
Huy V Nguyen1, An T M Dao, Dzung V Do.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many academic settings teaching a particular topic is applied to every student enrolled in the same academic year, it is a difficult task for researchers to design a randomized control group study. This research aimed to estimate the effect of teaching management and planning on increasing academic planning behavior (APB), using propensity score matching (PSM).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22151539 PMCID: PMC3269991 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Figure 1A Model of Strategic Communication and Behavior Change.
Dependent variable proportions for MPE students and non-MPE students
| Dependent Variable (APB) | Exposed Students | Non-Exposed Students | P (χ2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| APB during the past year | 65(44.52) | 85(30.91) | ** |
| APB during the past year | 57(46.34) | 93(31.21) | ** |
*p < .05; **p < .01: ***p < .001
Results of the structural equation model and propensity score analysis of APB
| Variables | Description % or mean (range) | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | Ideation | APB | Recall | APB | ||
| Age (older vs. younger) | 21.04 | 1.22*** | 0.20*** | - | 1.22*** | - |
| Gender (female vs. male) | 53.00 | 0.82*** | 0.17 | - | 0.80*** | - |
| Parental occupation (white vs. blue collar) | 41.09 | 0.07 | 0.29* | - | 0.06 | - |
| Place of permanent residence (urban vs. rural) | 47.27 | 0.19* | - | - | 0.18 | - |
| Ideation (higher vs. lower) | 18.05 | 0.75*** | 0.75* | |||
| Recall (higher vs. lower) | 29.22 | 0.50* | 0.57* | 0.47* | ||
| Academic year (senior vs. junior) | 51.54 | - | - | 0.19* | - | 0.10 |
| Living stipend level (million Vietnamese Dong) | 1.36 | 0.14 | - | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.11 |
| Religion (yes vs. no) | 2.14 | - | 0.60 | - | - | - |
| Number of cases | 421 | 421 | 421 | 421 | 421 | 421 |
| Variance explained (adjusted R2) | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.32 | .20 | 0.12 | |
| Exclusion test (model fitness) ( | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Test for endogeneity - Biprobit rho for Model 2: 0.07 (-0.30-0.43)
rho-based p: Chi
Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; NS = not significant
Exclusion of a variable for model identification is indicated by (-).
1The likelihood ratio test was used for binary dependent variables.
Balance of the propensity scores for MPE exposure: Results from PSM
| Stratum | Non-Exposed to MPE (A) | Exposed to MPE (B) | Total | Net Difference (B-A) Using "Atts" Command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (range of pscore = 0 - ~0.1)# | 221 | 0 | 221 | |
| 2 (range of pscore = 0.1 - ~0.2)# | 39 | 6 | 45 | |
| 3 (range of pscore = 0.2 - ~0.3)# | 7 | 4 | 11 | |
| 4 (range of pscore = 0.3 - ~0.4)# | 19 | 26 | 45 | 18.6% (p < 0.05) |
| 5 (range of pscore = 0.4 - ~0.5)# | 7 | 20 | 27 | |
| 6 (range of pscore = 0.5 - ~1)# | 5 | 67 | 72 | |
Average propensity score = .29; SD = .36; Range = .002 - .999
# pscore statistics indicate that there is no statistical difference between A and B within each stratum (p > .05), meaning that propensity scores balanced at 6 strata
Figure 2Comparison of the unadjusted increase in APB to the increase adjusted by PSM (N = 421).