Literature DB >> 21113711

Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: perceptions of clinicians and students.

Simon Rowland1, Kamran Ahmed, David Ceri Davies, Hutan Ashrafian, Vishal Patel, Ara Darzi, Paraskevas A Paraskeva, Thanos Athanasiou.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In anatomy education, assessment may be done by written, practical or oral methods. These are used to varying degrees in UK medical schools with no consensus on the preferred approach. The purpose of this article is to highlight changes to methods of anatomical knowledge assessment utilised in medical schools since the early 1990s and to present recommended methods of assessment according to the level of medical training.
METHODS: Medical students, trainees and specialists in the London (UK) area were surveyed to: (1) identify methods experienced in anatomy education at medical school and (2) gather recommendations. Medical student, trainee and specialist responses were compared using non-parametric tests.
RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight individuals responded to the survey giving a response rate of 53%. Subjects who graduated before 2005 were assessed significantly more frequently by practical (94.2 vs. 33.3%) and oral (84.5 vs. 13.1%) methods than those whose graduation year was 2005 or later. Subjects whose graduation year was 2005 or later were assessed significantly more frequently by written methods, such as EMQs than those whose graduation was before 2005 (68.7 vs. 25.2%). Practical examination was identified as the most recommended method of assessment in anatomy education by medical students (59.1%), trainees (all stages combined; 54.2%) and specialists (51.7%).
CONCLUSION: Practical assessment is recommended over written and oral methods for the assessment of anatomical knowledge. A formal evaluation of the relative benefits and limitations of available assessment tools is required.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21113711     DOI: 10.1007/s00276-010-0748-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat        ISSN: 0930-1038            Impact factor:   1.246


  17 in total

1.  Weekly quizzes in extended-matching format as a means of monitoring students' progress in gross anatomy.

Authors:  I K Lukić; V Gluncić; V Katavić; Z Petanjek; D Jalsovec; A Marusić
Journal:  Ann Anat       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.698

Review 2.  Development of a Web-based question database for students' self-assessment.

Authors:  Maya M Hammoud; Mel L Barclay
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  Assessment of anatomy in a problem-based medical curriculum.

Authors:  Manoj Chakravarty; Nasir A Latif; Marwan F Abu-Hijleh; Mirghani Osman; Amol S Dharap; Pallab K Ganguly
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.414

4.  Formative assessment: a key to deep learning?

Authors:  Alison Rushton
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.650

Review 5.  Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Andreas Winkelmann
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  An investigation into medical students' approaches to anatomy learning in a systems-based prosection course.

Authors:  Claire France Smith; Haydn Mathias
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.414

7.  The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications.

Authors:  C P Van Der Vleuten
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.853

Review 8.  Assessment of specialists in cardiovascular practice.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Hutan Ashrafian; George B Hanna; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 9.  Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Amit Vats; Kamal Nagpal; Oliver Priest; Vanash Patel; Joshua A Vecht; Hutan Ashrafian; Guang-Zhong Yang; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2009-09-06       Impact factor: 6.071

10.  Role of virtual reality simulation in teaching and assessing technical skills in endovascular intervention.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Aoife N Keeling; Morkos Fakhry; Hutan Ashrafian; Rajesh Aggarwal; Peter A Naughton; Ara Darzi; Nicholas Cheshire; Thanos Athanasiou; Mohammed Hamady
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.464

View more
  7 in total

1.  Anatomy learning styles and strategies among Jordanian and Malaysian medical students: the impact of culture on learning anatomy.

Authors:  Ayman G Mustafa; Mohammed Z Allouh; Intisar G Mustafa; Ibrahim M Hoja
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Development of a Virtual Three-Dimensional Assessment Scenario for Anatomical Education.

Authors:  Katerina Bogomolova; Amir H Sam; Adam T Misky; Chinmay M Gupte; Paul H Strutton; Thomas J Hurkxkens; Beerend P Hierck
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 5.958

3.  Learning styles and strategies preferences of Iranian medical students in gross anatomy courses and their correlations with gender.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Atlasi; Alireza Moravveji; Hossein Nikzad; Vahid Mehrabadi; Homayoun Naderian
Journal:  Anat Cell Biol       Date:  2017-12-29

4.  Australian chiropractors' perception of the clinical relevance of anatomical sciences and adequacy of teaching in chiropractic curricula.

Authors:  Rosemary Giuriato; Goran Štrkalj; Tania Prvan; Nalini Pather
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2020-07-16

5.  Predictors of confidence in anatomy knowledge for work as a junior doctor: a national survey of Australian medical students.

Authors:  John E Farey; David T Bui; David Townsend; Premala Sureshkumar; Sandra Carr; Chris Roberts
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Anatomy education in US Medical Schools: before, during, and beyond COVID-19.

Authors:  Max Shin; Aman Prasad; Graham Sabo; Alexander S R Macnow; Neil P Sheth; Michael B Cross; Ajay Premkumar
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Standard-Setting of Multidisciplinary Objective Structured Practical Examination.

Authors:  Sherif M Zaki; Amira S Ismail
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-24
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.