Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing free response short answer questions in anatomy spot tests: experiment study

  • Teaching Anatomy
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A spot test is commonly used to assess practical knowledge through a series of specific questions related to the marked anatomical structures on cadavers. However, the continuous reviewing and developing of the medical curricula demands the need to improve the assessment method of the practical examination of anatomical knowledge. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a free response short-answer questions (FRSAQs) test and traditional questions on medical students’ performance.

Methods

This is an experimental study using a Randomized Posttest-Only Control Group Design to compare the mean of students’ performance in addition to their perceptions about the two versions of the spot tests. Two hundred and ninety preclinical-year medical students were invited to participate in this study.

Results

Only 109 (38%) students participated in this study. The data analysis showed a significant improvement in students’ performance in the FRSAQs test (5.3 ± 2.7) than the traditional spot test (4.7 ± 2.6), (P = 0.04). The majority of the students (70%) preferred the FRSAQs spot test, citing that it is good test to assess practical knowledge. The psychometric analysis revealed that the FRSAQs produced more ideal stations (60%) when compared to the traditional spot test (10%).

Conclusion

The current study found that the FRSAQs spot test had a significant impact on students’ performance, and it was considered an ideal, flexible, and stress-free assessment method when compared to the traditional spot test. Implementation of the strategy in teaching and in assessment is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner E, Chirculescu AR, Reblet C, Smith C (2015) Assessment in anatomy. Eur J Anat 19(1):105–124

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cherian SB (2017) COSPE in anatomy: an innovative method of evaluation. Int J Adv Res 5(5):325–327. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Choudhury B, Freemont A (2017) Assessment of anatomical knowledge: approaches taken by higher education institutions. Clin Anat 30(3):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins TJ, Given RL, Hulsebosch CE, Miller BT (1994) Status of gross anatomy in the US and Canada: dilemma for the 21st century. Clin Anat 7(5):275–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.980070509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F (2012) Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. JPMA-J Pak Med Assoc 62(2):142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ikah DS, Finn GM, Swamy M, White PM, McLachlan JC (2015) Clinical vignettes improve performance in anatomy practical assessment. Anat Sci Educ 8(3):221–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Inuwa IM, Al Rawahy M, Taranikanti V, Habbal O (2011) Anatomy “steeplechase” online: necessity sometimes is the catalyst for innovation. Anat Sci Educ 4(2):115–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O (2012) Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format? Anat Sci Educ 5(1):27–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Krippendorf BB, Bolender DL, Kolesari GL (2008) Computerized grading of anatomy laboratory practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ 1(5):220–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenth RV. Java applets for power and sample size [Computer software]. https://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power. Accessed 12 Aug 2019

  11. Mujahid AM, Anjalee O, Ashraf KM, RK Z, (2015) Calculation of difficulty index of soft tissue spotters in anatomy: an advance, novel method of assessment in university examination, a cross sectional study at GMC Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. Indian J Clin Anat Physiol 2(4):190–198. https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-2126.2015.00019.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Paas F, Ayres P, Pachman M (2008) Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Information Age Publishing Inc., Charlotte, pp 11–35

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ Psychol 38:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paas F, Van Gog T, Sweller J (2010) Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educ Psychol Rev 22(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paas FG, Van Merriënboer JJ (1994) Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 6(4):351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pangaro L, Ten Cate O (2013) Frameworks for learner assessment in medicine: AMEE Guide No. 78. Med Teach 35(6):1197–1210. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.788789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ranjan R, Jain A, Rashmi Bhujade R (2016) OSPE in anatomy: New dimensions in assessment. Int J Anat Res 4(1):1789–1794. https://doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2015.336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sagoo MG, Smith CF, Gosden E (2016) Assessment of anatomical knowledge by practical examinations: the effect of question design on student performance. Anat Sci Educ 9(5):446–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith CF, McManus B (2015) The integrated anatomy practical paper: a robust assessment method for anatomy education today. Anat Sci Educ 8(1):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sweller J, Chandler P (1994) Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognit Instr 12:185–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Taib F, Yusoff MSB (2014) Difficulty index, discrimination index, sensitivity and specificity of long case and multiple choice questions to predict medical students’ examination performance. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 9(2):110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2013.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P (2013) What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 6(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the Department of Medical Education at the College of Medicine, KSAU-HS, Riyadh, to provide guidance and support during the study's conduction.

Funding

I confirm that this study and authors received no fund or financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), P.O.Box.3660, Riyadh, 11481, Saudi Arabia

    Abdulrahman Alraddadi, Ibrahim Hoja & Haifa Alhawas

  2. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Ministry of National Guard, Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Abdulrahman Alraddadi, Ibrahim Hoja, Haifa Alhawas, Bader Khawaji, Yasser Alharbi, Sajida Agha & Emad Masuadi

  3. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Bader Khawaji & Yasser Alharbi

  4. Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Sajida Agha & Emad Masuadi

  5. Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Mohi Eldin Magzoub

Authors
  1. Abdulrahman Alraddadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim Hoja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haifa Alhawas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bader Khawaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yasser Alharbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sajida Agha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emad Masuadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohi Eldin Magzoub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection was performed by AA, IH, and HA. Data analysis and results interpretation was done by EM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AA and SA. Manuscript reviewed and improved by BK and YA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The study was conducted under the supervision of MM.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdulrahman Alraddadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I confirm that none of the authors have any conflict of interest with the content of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This study is ethically approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: RYD-18-419812-152758.

Informed consent

A consent forms were signed by all students before conduction the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alraddadi, A., Hoja, I., Alhawas, H. et al. Introducing free response short answer questions in anatomy spot tests: experiment study. Surg Radiol Anat 43, 497–503 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-020-02550-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-020-02550-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation