Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Utilization of ExamSoft®-iPad® Technology in Administering and Grading Anatomy Practical Examinations

  • Monograph
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article provides a detailed, step-by-step description of the introduction of technology (iPad® use of ExamSoft® web-based assessment software) for administering and grading cadaver-oriented anatomy practical examinations. We explain the advantages of computer-based testing in the delivery and grading of practical examinations, including minimizing human error inherent in hand grading, improving the efficiency of reporting, and mapping the examination to course objectives. Furthermore, item analysis (including item difficulty, discrimination indices, and point biserial correlations) allows evaluation of laboratory teaching and testing and monitoring of the curriculum. We also address how the advantages of this format override any limitation, such as cost. In conclusion, we describe our future directions and how others could adopt this approach.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37:312–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010;85:220–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liaison committee on medical education (LCME)-functions and structure of a medical school: standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree, Published 2019. https://lcme.org/publications/#Standards. Accessed May 2019

  4. Wilson AB, Brown KM, Misch J, Miller CH, Klein BA, Taylor MA, et al. Breaking with tradition: a scoping meta-analysis analyzing the effects of student-centered learning and computer-aided instruction on student performance in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vasan NS, DeFouw D, Holland B. Modified use of team-based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vasan NS, DeFouw D, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:150–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. Team based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vasan NS. Management and delivery of the gross anatomy curriculum with decreased course time: the importance of structured teaching activities. Med Educ. 2003;7:479–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:104–7. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588407X168244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat. 2007;29:173–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Why don’t they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011;33:403–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States medical schools. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schubert S, Schnabel KP, Winkelmann A. Assessment of spatial anatomical knowledge with a “three-dimensional multiple-choice test” (3D-MC). Med Teach. 2009;31(1):e13–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802334325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krippendorf BB, Bolender DL, Kolesari GL. Computerized grading of anatomy laboratory practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(5):220–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wass V, van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet. 2001;357(9260):945–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meyer AJ, Innes SI, Stomski NJ, Armson AJ. Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:111–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daly FJ. Use of electronic anatomy practical examinations for remediating “at risk” students. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:46–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O. Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format? Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chakravarty M, Latif NA, Abu-Hijleh MF, Osman M, Dharap AS, Ganguly PK. Assessment of anatomy in a problem-based medical curriculum. Clin Anat. 2005;18:131–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P. What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson AB, Grichanik M, Williams JM. Computer-based administration and grading of free response practical examination items: a comparison of assessment programs and case study. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(4):847–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng M, Bender D. Evaluating outcomes of computer-based classroom testing: student acceptance and impact on learning and exam performance. Med Teach. 2019;41:75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rowland S, Ahmed K, Davies DC, Ashrafian H, Patel V, Darzi A, et al. Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: perceptions of clinicians and students. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33:263–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008;7:368–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson AR, O’Loughlin VD. 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. 2015;8:493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ. 2002;36:800–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Melovitz-Vasan CA, DeFouw DO, Holland BK, Vasan NS. Analysis of testing with multiple choice versus open-ended questions: outcome-based observations in an anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:254–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1739. Epub 2017 Sep 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR, Masia BB. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: D. McKay; 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hussey T, Smith P. The trouble with learning outcomes. Active Learn High Educ. 2002;3:220–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patil SY, Gosavi M, Bannur HB, Ratnakar A. Blueprinting in assessment: a tool to increase the validity of undergraduate written examinations in pathology. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2015;5:S76–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamdy H. Blue printing in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity and its threats. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 21–56.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81:207–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McNulty JA, Sonntag B, Sinacore JM. Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: a six-year study. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Medical Education, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

    Matthew Gentile & Susan Huff

  2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, 401 South Broadway, Camden, 08103, USA

    Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan & Nagaswami Vasan

Authors
  1. Matthew Gentile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Huff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagaswami Vasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nagaswami Vasan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This manuscript describes a process-oriented quality improvement; hence, IRB approval was not mandated.

Informed Consent

All authors approve the content of the manuscript as presented.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

*Matthew Gentile and Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan hold joint first authorship.

Appendix

Appendix

Examples of test question:

Tag the following branches of brachial plexus:

  1. A.

    Musculocutaneous nerve

  2. B.

    Ulnar

  3. C.

    Radial

  4. D.

    Median

Axillary

  1. 1.

    Identify the tagged nerve. (first order-recall of knowledge)

  2. 2.

    The tagged nerve is a branch of which cord of the brachial plexus? (2nd order-recall and comprehension)

  3. 3.

    In patient exhibiting numbness on the lateral aspects of the forearm which nerve is involved? (3rd/4th order- application/analysis)

  4. 4.

    Following a nerve injury, if a patient lost abduction at the shoulder joint which area of the arm he will also show paresthesia? (3rd/4th order- application/analysis and evaluation)

Skull base-Cranial nerves:

Probe the following foramina and bony passages.

  1. A.

    Oval

  2. B.

    round

  3. C.

    Stylomastoid foramen

  4. D.

    Superior orbital fissure

  5. E.

    Internal acoustic meatus

  1. 1.

    Which bony passage is probed? (first order-recall of knowledge)

  2. 2.

    In patient exhibiting Bell’s palsy which bony passage is involved/ (2nd order-knowledge/comprehension/synthesis)

  3. 3.

    In patient exhibiting loss of hearing and Bell’s palsy which bony passage is involved? (3rd order-comprehension/analysis/synthesis)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gentile, M., Melovitz-Vasan, C., Huff, S. et al. The Utilization of ExamSoft®-iPad® Technology in Administering and Grading Anatomy Practical Examinations. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 831–840 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00750-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00750-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation