. 2021 Aug 30;21:459. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02886-3

Table 2.

Pairwise Comparisons for Intervention Phases

Evaluation Item	Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistic	Significant Pairwise Comparisons
I enjoyed the “active learning” format of this presentation.	H (3)= 10.52, p = 0.015	Intervention 3 (Mean Rank = 160) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 196) (p = 0.043)
The content covered was appropriate for my level of training.	H (3)= 3.44, p = 0.328	–
This lecture improved my understanding of antibiotics and their appropriate clinical use.	H (3)=15.98, p = 0.001	Intervention 1 (Mean Rank = 170) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 200) (p = 0.038) Intervention 3 (Mean Rank = 158) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 200) (p = 0.012)

Evaluation Item

Kruskal-Wallis
Test Statistic

Significant Pairwise Comparisons

I enjoyed the “active learning” format of this presentation.

H (3)= 10.52, p = 0.015

Intervention 3 (Mean Rank = 160) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 196) (p = 0.043)

The content covered was appropriate for my level of training.

H (3)= 3.44, p = 0.328

–

This lecture improved my understanding of antibiotics and their appropriate clinical use.

H (3)=15.98, p = 0.001

Intervention 1 (Mean Rank = 170) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 200) (p = 0.038)

Intervention 3 (Mean Rank = 158) vs. Baseline (Mean Rank = 200) (p = 0.012)

Note: Pairwise comparisons corrected for multiple comparisons. We only included significant pairwise comparisons. Lower mean ranks indicate higher agreement on item