Current replication
Spearman rank correlation
Not measuredNo current measurement is available in this registry.
Research study · 2024
Undergraduate pharmacy students’ preference for case-based learning: a discrete choice experiment in China
Explore the published experiment and its available replication evidence.
Read the paper ↗01 / Human finding
What the study found
A reviewed summary is not available in this registry. Consult the published paper for the original finding.
Answer-key review: Not reviewed
02 / Experiment design
Who chose, and what varied
- Country
- China
- Human respondents
- Not recorded
- Attributes
- 6
- Task
- discrete choice
03 / Synthetic replication
Registry replication results
Paper-era reference
2023 CLM mean Spearman ρ
Not measuredHistorical results use their original estimator and reference. They are not a matched comparison with the current run.
Detailed replication evidence · 2026-11-02
Right direction on all 6 significant effects, close ranking (ρ = 0.84); sizes not comparable (the paper reports logit coefficients).
Use it to screen and rank which attributes move choice; sizes need the paper's respondent data.
- direction
- holds
- rank
- holds
- size
- not comparable
Supported uses
- Screening which attributes move choice, and in which direction.
- Ranking attributes and levels by how strongly they move choice.
Limits to keep in view
- Effect sizes in the paper's units; only direction, rank and shape are compared.
Effects on a common scale
Human effects: logit coefficient. Synthetic effects are multiplied by the record’s calibration factor, k = 6.3447. Calibration aligns magnitude; it does not establish agreement in unadjusted effect sizes.
| Attribute / level | Human | Human 95% half-width | Calibrated synthetic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case modality: Paper (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Case modality: Scenario simulation | 0.570 | Not measured | 0.120 |
| Case modality: Video | 0.180 | Not measured | 0.360 |
| Provider type: Clinical instructors (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Provider type: Academic experts | -0.370 | Not measured | -0.008 |
| Provider type: Mixed | -0.140 | Not measured | -0.146 |
| Group size: Large (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Group size: Medium | 0.100 | Not measured | 0.498 |
| Group size: Small | 0.230 | Not measured | 0.481 |
| Case authenticity: Real (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Case authenticity: Virtual | -0.430 | Not measured | -0.287 |
| Case complexity: Low (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Case complexity: Medium | -0.100 | Not measured | 0.097 |
| Case complexity: High | -0.170 | Not measured | -0.116 |
| Examination: Traditional written exam (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Examination: Oral presentation | -0.050 | Not measured | -0.227 |
Subgroups · screen, not a result
Split by sex: 1 of 1 significant differences keep their direction in the simulation (21% to 100%)
screen, not a result. Each row is the male group’s effect minus the female group’s, human in logit, simulated on the simulation’s own scale, so compare direction, not size. A Jev fast-small screen makes no comparison claim.
- Sign agreement
- 1/1, 100%
- 95% interval
- 21% to 100%
- Shuffle null
- 53%, p 0.51
- Shape ρ
- –
- Scale ratio
- –
| Group | Simulated n | People n | ρ vs paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| female | 112 | not given | – |
| male | 98 | not given | – |
| Attribute / level | People Δ (95%) | Significant | Simulated Δ (own scale) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case complexity: High | +0.25 ±0.23 | yes | +0.00 ±0.09 | same direction |
04 / Evidence and limitations
Follow the evidence
Missing results mean unmeasured, not zero agreement.
- missing parent paper url
- missing canonical pdf
- missing historic score
- missing resolved wandb run