Item difficulty in the evaluation of computer-based instruction: An example from neuroanatomy

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 63-75

  Chariker, Julia H ^a   Naaz, Farah ^a   Pani, John R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

3D graphics; Computer assisted instruction; Computer based learning; Difficulty; Generalization; Instruction; Item effects; Neuroanatomy education; Transfer of learning

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LEARNING; LONG TERM MEMORY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROANATOMY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TEACHING; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; KENTUCKY; MALE; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEUROANATOMY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); TEACHING; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); UNIVERSITIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857782754     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1260     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ackerman MJ. 1995. Accessing the Visible Human Project. D-Lib Magazine, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, VA. URL: [accessed 10 June 2011].
2. Bennett GK, Seashore HG, Wesman AG. 1989. Differential Aptitude Tests® for Personnel and Career Assessment: Space Relations. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3. Chariker JH, Naaz F, Pani JR. 2011. Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. J Educ Psychol 103: 19-31.
4. Collins JP. 2008. Modern approaches to teaching and learning anatomy. BMJ 337: 665-667.
5. Cook DA. 2005. The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med 80: 541-548.
6. Crowley RS, Medvedeva O. 2006. An intelligent tutoring system for visual classification problem solving. Artif Intell Med 36: 85-117.
7. Downing SM, Yudkowsky R (Editors). 2009. Assessment in Health Profession Education.1st Ed. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 336 p.
8. El Saadawi GM, Tseytlin E, Legowski E, Jukic D, Castine M, Fine J, Gormley R, Crowley RS. 2008. A natural language intelligent tutoring system for training pathologists: Implementation and evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 13: 709-722.
9. Friedman CP. 1994. The research we should be doing. Acad Med 69: 455-457.
10. Garg AX, Norman GR, Eva KW, Spero L, Sharan S. 2002. Is there any real virtue of virtual reality? The minor role of multiple orientations in learning anatomy from computers. Acad Med 77: S97-S99.
11. Hallgren RC, Parkhurst PE, Monson CL, Crewe NM. 2002. An interactive, web-based tool for learning anatomic landmarks. Acad Med 77: 263-265.
12. Halpern DF. 2000. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. 3rd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 440 p.
13. Hariri S, Rawn C, Srivastava S, Youngblood P, Ladd A. 2004. Evaluation of a surgical simulator for learning clinical anatomy. Med Educ 38: 896-902.
14. Höhne KH, Petersik A, Pflesser B, Pommert A. Priesmeyer K, Riemer M, Schiemann T, Schubert R, Tiede U, Urban M, Frederking H, Lowndes M, Morris J. 2003. Voxel-Man 3D-Navigator: Brain and Skull. Regional, Functional, and Radiological Anatomy (DVD). New York, NY: Springer Electronic Media.
15. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. 2005. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Med Teach 27: 10-28.
16. Keedy AW, Durack JC, Sandhu P, Chen EM, O'Sullivan PS, Breiman RS. 2011. Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 4: 84-91.
17. Keehner M, Hegarty M, Cohen C, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR. 2008. Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cogn Sci 32: 1099-1132.
18. Kikinis R, Shenton ME, Iosifescu DV, McCarley RW, Saiviroonporn P, Hokama HH, Robatino A, Metcalf D, Wible CG, Portas CM, Donnino RM, Jolesz FA. 1996. A digital brain atlas for surgical planning, model driven segmentation and teaching. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 2: 232-241.
19. Kockro RA, Stadie A, Schwandt E, Reisch R, Charalampaki C, Ng I, Yeo TT, Hwang P, Serra L, Perneczky A. 2007. A collaborative virtual reality environment for neurosurgical planning and training. Neurosurgery 61: 379-391.
20. 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.
21. Luursema J-M, Verwey WB, Kommers PA, Geelkerken RH, Vos HJ. 2006. Optimizing conditions for computer-assisted anatomical learning. Interact Comput 18: 1123-1138.
22. Malone HR, Syed ON, Downes MS, D'Ambrosio AL, Quest DO, Kaiser MG. 2010. Simulation in neurosurgery: A review of computer-based simulation environments and their surgical applications. Neurosurgery 67: 1105-1116.
23. MathWorks. 2011. MATLAB Tour 2011. Accelerating Innovations with MATLAB and Simulink. Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc. URL: [accessed Oct. 2011].
24. McNulty JA, Sonntag B, Sinacore JM. 2009. Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six-year study. Anat Sci Educ 2: 2-8.
25. Nering ML, Ostini R (Editors). 2010. Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models.1st Ed. New York, NY: Routledge Academics, Taylor & Francis Group. 306 p.
26. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WR, Daniel SJ. 2006. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ 40: 1081-1087.
27. Nowinski WL, Thirunavuukarasuu A, Ananthasubramaniam A, Chua BC, Qian G, Nowinska NG, Marchenko Y, Volkau I. 2009. Automatic testing and assessment of neuroanatomy using a digital brain atlas: Method and development of computer- and mobile-based applications. Anat Sci Educ 2: 244-252.
28. Petersson H, Sinkvist D, Wang C, Smedby O. 2009. Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anat Sci Educ 2: 61-68.
29. Primal Pictures. 2007. 3D Human Anatomy Software. London, UK: Primal Pictures Ltd. URL: [accessed Oct. 2011].
30. Ratiu P, Hillen B, Glaser J, Jenkins DP. 2003. Visible Human 2.0-The next generation. Stud Health Technol Inform 94: 275-281.
31. Ruiz JG, Cook DA, Levinson AJ. 2009. Computer animations in medical education: A critical literature review. Med Educ 43: 838-846.
32. Singer JD, Willett JB. 2003. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 672 p.
33. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3: 83-93.
34. 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: e393-e396.
35. Trelease RB. 2002. Anatomical informatics: Millennial perspectives on a newer frontier. Anat Rec 269: 224-235.
36. Trelease RB. 2008. Diffusion of innovations: Smartphones and wireless anatomy learning resources. Anat Sci Educ 1: 233-239.
37. UW-SIG. 1999. University of Washington, Structural Informatics Group, Department of Biological Structure, University of Washington. The Digital Anatomist Information System. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. URL: [accessed 6 September 2011].
38. Winkelman A. 2007. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: A review of the evidence. Med Educ 41: 15-22.
39. Yeung JC, Fung K, Wilson TD. 2011. Development of a computer-assisted cranial nerve simulation from the visible human dataset. Anat Sci Educ 4: 92-97.