Literature DB >> 15733169

Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy?

Katinka J A H Prince1, Albert J A A Scherpbier, Henk van Mameren, Jan Drukker, Cees P M van der Vleuten.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Comparisons of anatomy knowledge levels of students from various curricula show either no differences or small differences to the detriment of innovative schools. To pass judgement on the general level of students' anatomy knowledge, we need an absolute standard. The purpose of this study was to compare students' levels of anatomy knowledge as measured by a case-based anatomy test with standards set by different groups of experts.
METHODS: A modified Angoff procedure was used to establish an absolute standard against which the students' results could be evaluated. Four panels of 9 anatomists, 7 clinicians, 9 recent graduates and 9 Year 4 students, respectively, judged 107 items of an anatomy test. The students' results on these items were compared with the standards obtained by the panels.
RESULTS: If the standard established by the panel of Year 4 students was used, 64% of the students would fail the test. The standards established by the anatomists, clinicians and recent graduates would yield failure rates of 42%, 58% and 26%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: According to the panels' standards, many students did not know enough about anatomy. The high expectations that the Year 4 students appeared to have of their peers may contribute to students' uncertainty about their level of anatomy knowledge.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15733169     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02096.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  24 in total

1.  [Autopsies 2010. Is death still teaching the living?].

Authors:  C Tóth
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  Traditional versus three-dimensional teaching of peritoneal embryogenesis: a comparative prospective study.

Authors:  Bassem Abid; Nejmeddine Hentati; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Ali Ghorbel; Vincent Delmas; Richard Douard
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Determination of required anatomical knowledge for clinical practice in emergency medicine: national curriculum planning using a modified Delphi technique.

Authors:  D Kilroy; P Driscoll
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Temporal structure of first-year courses and success at course exams: comparison of traditional continual and block delivery of anatomy and chemistry courses.

Authors:  Daniela Salopek; Jasna Lovrić; Darko Hren; Ana Marusić
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.351

Review 5.  Model pedagogy of human anatomy in medical education.

Authors:  Raj Kumar; Rajani Singh
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 1.246

6.  Endoscopic anatomy of the ulnar nerve: a useful adjunct to teaching anatomy.

Authors:  Paolo Matteucci; Menos Lagopoulos; Stephen Southern
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  Emphasis on various subtopics in the anatomy curriculum for chiropractic training: An international survey of chiropractors and anatomists.

Authors:  Peter D Chapman; Amanda Meyer; Kenneth Young; Daniel Wibowo; Bruce Walker
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2014-12-17

8.  From Scope to Screen: The Evolution of Histology Education.

Authors:  Jamie A Chapman; Lisa M J Lee; Nathan T Swailes
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 9.  Is the decline of human anatomy hazardous to medical education/profession?--A review.

Authors:  Rajani Singh; R Shane Tubbs; Kavita Gupta; Man Singh; D Gareth Jones; Raj Kumar
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  Determination of required pharmacological knowledge for clinical practice in emergency medicine using a modified Delphi technique.

Authors:  D A Kilroy; J S Mooney
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.740

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.