The integrated anatomy practical paper: A robust assessment method for anatomy education today

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 63-73

  Smith, Claire F ^a,b   Mcmanus, Bruce ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment methods; Gross anatomy education; Integrated curricula; Knowledge level; Laboratory examination; Learning approach; Medical education; Objectively structured practical examination; Practical examination; Spotter examination

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; TEACHING;

ANATOMY; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; LEARNING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; TEACHING;

EID: 84920418353     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1454     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC. 2000. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 2nd Ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. 336 p.
2. Angoff WH. 1971. Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In: Thorndike RL (Editor). Educational Measurement. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. 508 p.
3. Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. 2008. How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 1:184-188.
4. Biggs JB, Tang C. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th Ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. 480 p.
5. Böckers A, Mayer C, Böckers TB. 2014. Does learning in clinical context in anatomical sciences improve examination results, learning motivation, or learning orientation? Anat Sci Educ 7:3-11.
6. Bruner J. 1960. The Process of Education. 1st Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 97 p.
7. Cecot T, Smith CF, Border S. 2013. Blending the virtual and physical teaching environment: The potential role of the anatomy e-booklet. J Anat 224:248-249.
8. Chirculescu ARM, Chirculescu M, Moris JF. 2007. Anatomical teaching for medical students from the perspective of European Union enlargement. Eur J Anat 11:63-65.
9. Clough RW, Lehr RP. 1996. Testing knowledge of human gross anatomy in medical school: An applied contextual-learning theory method. Clin Anat 9:263-268.
10. Cohen-Schotanus J, van der Vleuten CP. 2010. A standard setting method with best performing students as point of reference: Practical and affordable. Med Teach 32:154-160.
11. Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. 2002. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ 36:800-804.
12. De Gruijter DM. 1985. Compromise models for establishing examination standards. J Educ Meas 22:263-269.
13. Drake RL. 1999. Anatomy in a changing medical curriculum. Kaibogaku Zasshi 74:487-490.
14. Duffield KE, Spencer JA. 2002. A survey of medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment. Med Educ 36:879-886.
15. Ebel RL. 1979. Essentials of Educational Measurement. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. 388 p.
16. Fabrizio PA. 2013. Oral anatomy laboratory examinations in a physical therapy program. Anat Sci Educ 6:271-276.
17. Hafferty FW. 1998. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine's hidden curriculum. Acad Med 73:403-407.
18. Heylings DJ. 2002. Anatomy 1999-2000: The curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ 36:702-710.
19. Jalili M, Hejri SM, Norcini JJ. 2011. Comparison of two methods of standard setting: The performance of the three-level Angoff method. Med Educ 45:1199-1208.
20. McHanwell S, Atkinson M, Davies DC, Dyball R, Morris J, Ockleford C, Parkin I, Standring S, Whiten S, Wilton J. 2007. A core syllabus in anatomy-Adding common sense to need to know. Eur J Anat 11:S3-S18.
21. Meyer JHF, Land R. 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. In: Rust C (Editor). Improving Student Learning: Theory and Practice Ten Years on. 1st Ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD) Inc. p 1-16.
22. Norcini JJ. 2003. Setting standards on educational tests. Med Educ 37:464-469.
23. Rowland S, Ahmed K, Davies DC, Ashrafian H, Patel V, Darzi A, Paraskeva PA, Athanasiou T. 2011. Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: Perceptions of clinicians and students. Surg Radiol Anat 33:263-269.
24. Shaibah HS, van der Vleuten CP. 2013. The validity of multiple choice practical examinations as an alternative to traditional free response examination formats in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 6:149-156.
25. Smith CF, Mathias HS. 2010. Medical students' approaches to learning anatomy: Students' experiences and relations to the learning environment. Clin Anat 23:106-114.
26. Smith CF, Mathias HS. 2011. What impact does anatomy education have on clinical practice? Clin Anat 24:113-119.
27. Smith CF, Martinez-Álvarez C, McHanwell S. 2014. The context of learning anatomy: Does it make a difference? J Anat 224:270-278.
28. Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P. 2013. What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 6:125-133.
29. Zhang G, Fenderson BA, Schmidt RR, Veloski JJ. 2013. Equivalence of student's scores on timed and untimed anatomy practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ 6:281-285.