Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The practical examination types (spot test and slide test) of gross anatomy course in faculty of medicine: a simultaneous evaluation of the aspect of student success

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the students' scores of the spot (spotter/classical/traditional/tag/ring/bell-ringer) test (3D environment) performed in the laboratory with the slide test (gross anatomy images) (2D environment) in the class. The observation of our department regarding both types for practical examination was reported, in terms of exam marks of the students. Both are preferred as the practical examination types for gross anatomy course our in medical faculty.

Methods

The 29 blocks' scores in 5 years (2013/2014–2017/2018) belonging to first- and second-year medical students' spot tests and slide tests are evaluated retrospectively and statistically compared. Correlations of the spot tests and the slide tests, besides the correlations between theoretical examinations and the practical examination types, are calculated.

Results

Spot test scores were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in nine blocks, while slide test scores were higher significantly (p < 0.05) in fourteen. There was no statistically significant difference between the practical examination types (spot/slide) in six blocks. There were correlations between the spot test and the slide test in all blocks (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

It is considered that the spot test reflects the success/ability in a 3D environment, while the slide test reflects it in the 2D environment. In conclusion, neither of these two types of examinations stands out absolutely. Both types of examinations have their own features in areas, such as assessment power, applicability, and effect on success.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agu A, Esom E, Nto J, Anyanwu G, Ezugworie J, Adiri C, Ozoemena F (2014) Students preference for various types of assessments in anatomy examination. IJDR 4:1377–1379. https://www.journalijdr.com/students-preference-various-types-assessments-anatomy-examination

  2. Bertman SL, Marks SC Jr (1985) Humanities in medical education: rationale and resources for the dissection laboratory. Med Educ 19:374–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01340.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Biasutto SN, Ignacio Caussa L, Criado E, del Río L (2006) Teaching anatomy: cadavers vs. computers? Ann Anat 188:187–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2005.07.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner E, Chirculescu ARM, Reblet C, Smith C (2015) Assessment in anatomy. Eur J Anat Off J Spanish Soc Anat 19:105–124. https://eurjanat.com/v1/journal/paper.php?id=140295eb

  5. Coulehan JL, Williams PC, Landis D, Naser C (1995) The first patient: reflections and stories about the anatomy cadaver. Teach Learn Med 7:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339509539712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drapkin ZA, Lindgren KA, Lopez MJ, Stabio ME (2015) Development and assessment of a new 3D neuroanatomy teaching tool for MRI training. Anat Sci Educ 8:502–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L (2001) How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03649-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanna J, Scopa Kelso R, Thompson A, Ward P, Wines K (2015) Assessment driven learning: the use of clinically integrated questions in the anatomy laboratory practical exam. FASEB J Off Publ Federation Am Soc Exp Biol 29(690):694. https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.690.4

  9. 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 5:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones NA, Olafson RP, Sutin J (1978) Evaluation of a gross anatomy program without dissection. J Med Educ 53:198–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197803000-00005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McBride JM, Drake RL (2015) Anatomy education in an innovative medical school curriculum. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W (eds) Teaching Anatomy, A Practical Guide. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 313–319 (ISBN:978-3-319-08929-4)

    Google Scholar 

  12. McNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ (2015) Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 8:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mitrousias V, Karachalios TS, Varitimidis SE, Natsis K, Arvanitis DL, Zibis AH (2020) Anatomy learning from prosected cadaveric specimens versus plastic models: a comparative study of upper limb anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 13:436–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Newble DI, Jaeger K (1983) The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 17:165–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1983.tb00657.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Norcini JJ (2003) Setting standards on educational tests. Med Educ 37:464–469. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01495.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W (2015) Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 8:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pandey P, Zimitat C (2007) Medical students’ learning of anatomy: memorisation, understanding and visualisation. Med Educ 41:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02643.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Poljičanin A, Čarić A, Vilović K, Košta V, Marinović Guić M, Aljinović J, Grković I (2009) Daily mini quizzes as means for improving student performance in anatomy course. Croat Med J 50:55–60. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2009.50.55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rao SP, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE (2002) Collaborative testing enhances student learning. Adv Physiol Educ 26:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00032.2001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Regehr G, Eva K, Ginsburg S, Halwani Y, Sidhu R (2011) Assessment in postgraduate medical education: trends and issues in assessment in the workplace. In: Members of the FMEC PG consortium, pp 1–12

  21. Sagoo MG, Vorstenbosch M, Bazira PJ, Ellis H, Kambouri M, Owen C (2020) Online assessment of applied anatomy knowledge: the effect of images on medical students’ performance. Anat Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Samarasekera DD, Gopalakrishnakone P, Gwee MCE (2015) Assessing anatomy as a basic medical science. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W (eds) Teaching Anatomy, A Practical Guide. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 279–291 (ISBN:978-3-319-08929-4)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schubert S, Schnabel KP, Winkelmann A (2009) Assessment of spatial anatomical knowledge with a ‘three-dimensional multiple choice test’(3D-MC). Med Teach 31:e13–e17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802334325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tanasi CM, Tanase VI, Harsovescu T (2014) Modern methods used in the study of human anatomy. Proc Soc Behav Sci 127:676–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Terrell M (2006) Anatomy of learning: instructional design principles for the anatomical sciences. Anat Rec B New Anat 289:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thompson AR, O’Loughlin VD (2015) The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): a discipline-specific rubric for utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 8:493–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeager VL (1996) Learning gross anatomy: dissection and prosection. Clin Anat 9:57–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1996)9:1%3c57::AID-CA12%3e3.0.CO;2-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is presented at the 1st International Mediterranean Anatomy Congress in 6–9 September 2018 and published in the abstract book.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University, Ataürk OSB Mah., Havaalanı Şosesi Cad., No: 33/2, Çiğli, 35620, İzmir, Turkey

    Kemal Emre Özen, Kübra Erdoğan, Gizem Çizmeci, Gonca Ay Keselik & Mehmet Ali Malas

  2. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Burhan Yarar

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey

    Ferhan Elmalı

Authors
  1. Kemal Emre Özen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kübra Erdoğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burhan Yarar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gizem Çizmeci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gonca Ay Keselik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ferhan Elmalı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehmet Ali Malas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KEÖ: project administration, writing—original draft, formal analysis (data analysis), visualization, KE: writing—review and editing, BY: data collection, investigation, GÇ: data collection, investigation, GAK: data collection, investigation, FE: formal analysis (data analysis), visualization, MAM: project development, conceptualization, supervision, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kemal Emre Özen.

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

Özen, K., Erdoğan, K., Yarar, B. et al. The practical examination types (spot test and slide test) of gross anatomy course in faculty of medicine: a simultaneous evaluation of the aspect of student success. Surg Radiol Anat 43, 505–513 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-021-02726-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-021-02726-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation