Map the study design
See this course’s project requirements
An evidence folder containing a paper-type note, design map, checked results, corrected claim, two-paper comparison, and a 150–250-word evidence brief.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- Identify publication type, specific question, and scope for P1.
- Map the design and check all rates with their denominators.
- Correct the overclaim and compare P1 with P2.
- Write the final brief with evidence IDs, limitations, and a useful next test.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Calculations and units match the supplied counts.
- Design descriptions separate assignment, recruitment, and measurement.
- Claims stay within tested populations and outcomes.
- The synthesis preserves disagreement and labels all practice data fictional.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Original fictional paper P1, “Signs and Sorting”: research question—do picture labels change sorting accuracy at one campus recycling station? Methods—40 volunteers randomly assigned to picture labels or text labels, 20 per group, one supervised session, identical items. Results—picture group 16/20 correct; text group 12/20 correct. Discussion—picture labels may help in this setting; volunteers and one session limit broader conclusions. No uncertainty interval or replication is supplied. This is a teaching example, not a published study.
A design map explains how the evidence was produced.
Map the study design: guided practice
A design map explains how the evidence was produced.
Use paper or a free local text editor. This is an original fictional practice case; do not submit its records to a real service. Start this lesson with these facts, even if an earlier variation changed them. Original fictional paper P1, “Signs and Sorting”: research question—do picture labels change sorting accuracy at one campus recycling station? Methods—40 volunteers randomly assigned to picture labels or text labels, 20 per group, one supervised session, identical items. Results—picture group 16/20 correct; text group 12/20 correct. Discussion—picture labels may help in this setting; volunteers and one session limit broader conclusions. No uncertainty interval or replication is supplied. This is a teaching example, not a published study.
1. Identify the units
Record who or what was assigned.
You should see: Forty individual volunteers were assigned, with 20 in each group.
Group size and unit of assignment affect what the comparison means.
2. Map conditions
Write picture labels versus text labels, holding identical items and session conditions fixed.
You should see: The stated difference is label format.
Comparisons are clearer when other conditions are documented.
3. Define the outcome
State what counts as success and when it was measured.
You should see: Correct sorting during the one supervised session.
A measured task result is more specific than a broad claim about behavior.
4. Draw the flow
Write recruitment → random assignment → sorting task → group results.
You should see: The flow contains volunteers, random assignment, one session, and two outcome counts.
A compact method map exposes missing information.
What to finish
Map the study design record with the worked decisions and changed-case check.
Watch for this
Equating volunteer recruitment with random assignment or assuming unmeasured outcomes.
How can I tell I understand it?
Extract assignment, groups, measurement, and timing from methods. Explain the evidence behind the result and correct any mismatch.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkOptional course overview video · same video as Lesson 1
How to Read a Scholarly Article
From libncsu. Watch here or open it on YouTube .
Optional course overview. Follow the written steps below at your own pace.Tools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-12
Inspected IMRD structure, figures, active questions, and evidence appraisal.
Access: Public page or PDF inspected without payment or institutional sign-in on September 12, 2026. Optional external accounts are unnecessary for this course.
Reuse: Link and original paraphrase only. Public access does not grant blanket reuse; no provider text, figures, or exercises are reproduced.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-12
Inspected primary-versus-review distinction, methods mapping, results-versus-interpretation, and reading limits.
Access: Public page or PDF inspected without payment or institutional sign-in on September 12, 2026. Optional external accounts are unnecessary for this course.
Reuse: Link and original paraphrase only. Public access does not grant blanket reuse; no provider text, figures, or exercises are reproduced.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.