Purpose/Hypothesis: Active learning techniques have been well documented and proven effective to improve student’s knowledge and application as compared to traditional lecture based methods in medical education, but there is limited documentation of this approach in the allied health sciences, i.e., physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech language therapy, respiratory therapy and nutrition. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether active learning improves course performance for students in allied health graduate programs as compared to traditional lecture. Number of Subjects: 1,118 students in allied health graduate programs from 5 studies were included in this review. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of five databases (i.e., PubMed, ERIC Institute of Education Sciences, Education Source, Academic Search Complete, and ProQuest Central) found 468 relevant studies that were screened by two authors for the following inclusion criteria: 1) allied health graduate program, 2) interactive learning method, 3) quantitative data (exam scores/pass rates), and 4) a traditional lecture comparison group. Five articles met these criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome measures used were final exam scores, final course grade, and/or exam pass rate. All data were standardized by conversion to standardized mean differences. A random-effects model was used in conjunction with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Three studies (Gonzalez-Sancho et al., 2013; Huitt, Killins, & Brooks, 2015; Lein, Lowman, Eidson, & Yuen, 2017)had positive effect sizes (ESs), meaning that active learning resulted in numerically better outcomes compared to traditional learning. On the other hand, two studies (Lohse, Nitzke, & Ney, 2003; Veneri & Gannotti, 2014) had negative ESs. The overall ES was calculated to equal +0.36, which is of small-to-moderate magnitude but this was not statistically significant (p= 0.204), meaning that we are unable to conclude that the outcomes for the two teaching methods are different. The nonsignificant finding can be explained by the small number of studies and the marked between-study variance (I2=89%; Q-df=32.8, p< 0.001). Conclusions: Before definitive conclusions can be made via meta-analysis, more studies are required that focus on education research in allied health fields, including those examining the marked between-study variance in findings. Clinical Relevance: The techniques utilized in this review had an increased focus on student-centered learning including team-based learning, problem-based learning and computer-assisted learning. The use of innovative and varying active learning techniques may improve teamwork and critical thinking, which are vital in health professions.