The virtual anatomy laboratory: Usability testing to improve an online learning resource for anatomy education

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 318-326

  Doubleday, Eldridge G ^a   O'Loughlin, Valerie D ^b   Doubleday, Alison F ^c  

^a Sears Holding Corporation   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy education; Computer aided instruction; Digital anatomy; Usability testing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; ONLINE SYSTEM; QUESTIONNAIRE; TEACHING;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANATOMY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80755168346     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.252     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abran A, Khelifi A, Suryn W, Seffah A. 2003. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Software Qual J 11: 325-338.
2. Brisbourne MA, Chin SS, Melnyk E, Begg DA. 2002. Using web-based animations to teach histology. Anat Rec 269: 11-19.
3. Bryner BS, Saddawi-Konefka D, Gest TR. 2008. The impact of interactive, computerized educational modules on preclinical medical education. Anat Sci Educ 1: 247-251.
4. Chandler P, Sweller J. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognit Instruct 8: 293-332.
5. Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL. 1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Soloway E, Frye D, Sheppard, SB (Editors). Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) CHI″88 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Washington, DC, June 15-19; p 213-218. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY.
6. Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL. 2002. Web-based learning: Sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 77: S86-S93.
7. Clark R. 1994. Media will never influence learning. Educ Tech Res Dev 42: 21-29.
8. Conyer M. 1995. User and usability testing - how it should be undertaken? Aust J Educ Tech 11: 38-51.
9. Couper MP. 2000. Usability evaluation of computer-assisted survey instruments. Soc Sci Comput Rev 18: 384-396.
10. Faulkner L. 2003. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 35: 379-383.
11. Foreman KB, Morton DA, Musolino GM, Albertine KH. 2005. Design and utility of a web-based computer-assisted instructional tool for neuroanatomy self-study and review for physical and occupational therapy graduate students. Anat Rec 285B: 26-31.
12. Garg A, Norman GR, Spero L, Maheshwari P. 1999. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad Med 74: S87-S89.
13. Granger NA, Calleson DC, Henson OW, Juliano E, Wineski L, Mcdaniel MD, Burgoon JM. 2006. Use of Web-based materials to enhance anatomy instruction in the health sciences. Anat Rec 289B: 121-127.
14. Greenhalgh T. 2001. Computer-assisted learning in an undergraduate medical education. BMJ 322: 40-44.
15. Gopal T, Herron SS, Mohn RS, Hartsell T, Jawor JM, Blickenstaff JC. 2010. Effect of an interactive web-based instruction in the performance of undergraduate anatomy and physiology lab students. Comput Educ 55: 500-512.
16. Gould DJ, Terrell MA, Fleming J. 2008. A usability study of users' perceptions toward a multimedia computer-assisted learning tool for neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ 1: 175-183.
17. Hassinger JP, Dozois EJ, Holubar SD, Camp JC, Farley DR, Fidler JL, Pawlina W, Robb RA, Larson DW. 2010. Virtual pelvic anatomy simulator: A pilot study of usability and perceived effectiveness. J Surg Res 161: 23-27.
18. Heo M, Chow A. 2005. The impact of computer augmented online learning and assessment tool. Educ Tech Soc 8: 113-125.
19. Higazi TB. 2011. Use of interactive live digital imaging to enhance histology learning in introductory level anatomy and physiology classes. Anat Sci Educ 4: 78-83.
20. Hilbelink AJ. 2009. A measure of the effectiveness of incorporating 3D human anatomy into an online undergraduate laboratory. Br J Educ Tech 40: 664-672.
21. Huang C, Huang HK. 2003. Interactive instruction of cellular physiology for remote learning. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) 49: 1377-1384.
22. Huang C. 2004. Virtual labs: E-learning for tomorrow. PLoS Biology 2: 734-735.
23. Husmann PR, O'Loughlin VD, Braun MW. 2009. Quantitative and qualitative changes in teaching histology by means of virtual microscopy in an introductory course in human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2: 218-226.
24. Hwang W, Salvendy G. 2010. Number of people required for usability evaluation: The 10 ± 2 rule. Comm ACM 53: 130-133.
25. Khan H, Maull K, Sumner T. 2008. Curriculum overlay model for embedding digital resources. In: Proceedings of the 8th Association for Computing Machinery and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-Computer Society (ACM/IEEE-CS) Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008): Bridging-Culture, Bridging-Technologies; Pittsburgh, PA, June 16-20; p 74-84. IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC.
26. Khogali SE, Davies DA, Donnan PT, Gray A, Harden RM, McDonald J, Pippard MJ, Pringle SD, Yu N. 2011. Integration of e-learning resources into a medical school curriculum. Med Teach 33: 311-318.
27. Kirschner PA. 2002. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instruct 12: 1-10.
28. Kozma R. 1994. Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educ Tech Res Dev 42: 7-19.
29. Levinson AJ, Weaver B, Garside S, Mcginn H, Norman GR. 2007. Virtual reality and brain anatomy: A randomized trial of e-learning instructional designs. Med Educ 41: 495-501.
30. Lewis JR. 1994. Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations. Hum Factors 36: 368-378.
31. Lu J, Li L, Sun GP. 2010. A multimodal virtual anatomy e-learning tool for medical education. Lect Notes Comput Sci 6249: 278-287.
32. Mack RL, Nielsen J. 1993. Usability inspection methods. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 25: 28-33.
33. McLean M. 2001. Web pages: An effective method of providing CAI resource material in histology. Med Teach 23: 263-269.
34. McNulty JA, Halama J, Dauzvardis MF, Espiritu B. 2000. Evaluation of Web-based computer-aided instruction in a basic science course. Acad Med 75: 59-65.
35. Moreno R, Mayer RE. 2000. A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. IMEJ 2:2. URL: [accessed 1 March 2011].
36. Nielsen J. 2000. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Alertbox: Current issues in web usability, Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA. URL: [accessed 1 March 2011].
37. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. 1993. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Ashlund S, Mullet K, Henderson A, Hollnagel E, White T (Editors). Proceedings of Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and International Federation for Information Processing (FIP) INTERACT″93/CHI′93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 24-29; p 206-213. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY.
38. O'Byrne PJ, Patry A, Carnegie JA. 2008. The development of interactive online learning tools for the study of anatomy. Med Teach 30: e260-e271.
39. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. 2003. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 38: 1-4.
40. QUIS. 2010. Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction QUIS™ version 7.0. The University of Maryland Office of Technology Commercialization, College Park, MD. URL: [accessed 1 March 2011].
41. Sanders J, Lafferty N. 2010. Twelve tips on usability testing to develop effective e-learning in medical education. Med Teach 32: 956-960.
42. Slaughter LA, Harper BD, Norman KL. 1994. Assessing the equivalence of paper and on-line versions of the QUIS 5.5. In: James C, Salzman M (Editors). George Mason University Student Chapter of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), the Potomac Chapter of the HFES, and Division 21: Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA). Proceedings of the 2nd Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference; Washington, DC, February 23-25; p 87-92. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
43. Spitzer VM, Scherzinger AL. 2006. Virtual anatomy: An anatomist's playground. Clin Anat 19: 192-203.
44. Su K-D. 2008. An integrated science course designed with information communication technologies to enhance university students' learning performance. Comput Educ 51: 1365-1374.
45. Sullivan F, Harden RM. 2005. The International Virtual Medical School: No science fiction. Student BMJ 13: 398.
46. Sweller J. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instruct 4: 295-312.
47. Tam MD, Hart AR, Williams S, Heylings D, Leinster S. 2009. Is learning anatomy facilitated by computer-aided learning? A review of the literature. Med Teach 31: 393-396.
48. Temkin B, Acosta E, Malvankar A, Vaidyanath S. 2006. An interactive three dimensional virtual body structures system for anatomical training over the internet. Clin Anat 19: 267-274.
49. Terrell M. 2006. Anatomy of learning: Instructional design principles for the anatomical sciences. Anat Rec 289B: 252-260.
50. Woolrych A, Cockton G. 2001. Why and when five test users aren't enough. In: Vanderdonckt J, Blandford A, Derycke A (Editors). IHM-HCI 2001: 13ème Conférence Francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine. Vol. 2. 1st Ed. Toulouse, France: Cépaduès-Éditions. p 105-108. URL: [accessed 1 March 2011].
51. Virtual Lab. 2007. Basic Human Anatomy, Indiana University Virtual Anatomy Lab. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN. URL: [accessed 1 March 2011].
52. Virzi RA. 1992. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 34: 457-468.