Testing anatomy: Dissecting spatial and non-spatial knowledge in multiple-choice question assessment.
assessment
cognitive psychology
multiple choice question
spatial abilities and medical education
spatial abilities and veterinary education
three-dimensional
Journal
Anatomical sciences education
ISSN: 1935-9780
Titre abrégé: Anat Sci Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101392205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2023
02 Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
20
07
2023
received:
30
08
2022
accepted:
22
07
2023
medline:
2
8
2023
pubmed:
2
8
2023
entrez:
2
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Limited research has been conducted on the spatial ability of veterinary students and how this is evaluated within anatomy assessments. This study describes the creation and evaluation of a split design multiple-choice question (MCQ) assessment (totaling 30 questions divided into 15 non-spatial MCQs and 15 spatial MCQs). Two cohorts were tested, one cohort received a 2D teaching method in the academic year 2014/15 (male = 15/108, female 93/108), and the second a 3D teaching method in the academic year 2015/16 (male 14/98, female 84/98). The evaluation of the MCQ demonstrated strong reliability (KR-20 = 0.71 2D and 0.63 3D) meaning the MCQ consistently tests the same construct. Factor analysis of the MCQ provides evidence of validity of the split design of the assessment (RR = 1.11, p = 0.013). Neither cohort outperformed on the non-spatial questions (p > 0.05), however, the 3D cohort performed statistically significantly higher on the spatial questions (p = 0.013). The results of this research support the design of a new anatomy assessment aimed at testing both anatomy knowledge and the problem-solving aspects of anatomical spatial ability. Furthermore, a 3D teaching method was shown to increase students' performance on anatomy questions testing spatial ability.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Principals Career Development PhD Scholarship
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Anatomical Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for Anatomy.
Références
Ackerman PL. Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive abilities and information processing. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117:288-318.
Berney S, Bétrancourt M, Molinari G, Hoyek N. How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:452-462.
Bloom B. Taxonomy of educational objectives. In: McKay D, editor. The cognitive domain. 1st ed. New York: Company Inc; 1984. p. 207.
Bogomolova K, Vorstenbosch MATM, El Messaoudi I, Holla M, Hovius SER, van der Hage JA, et al. Effect of binocular disparity on learning anatomy with stereoscopic augmented reality visualization: a double center randomized controlled trial. Anat Sci Educ. 2021:in press. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2164
Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: National Board of Medical Examiners; 2002. p. 112.
Dickson J, Gardiner A, Rhind S. Veterinary anatomy education and spatial ability: where now and where next? J Vet Med Educ. 2021;13:297-305.
Ekstrom R, French J, Harman H, Derman D. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1976. p. 224.
Evans H, DeLahunta A. Guide to the dissection of the dog. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Saunders/Elsevier; 2010. p. 303.
Garg A, Norman G, Spero L, Taylor I. Learning anatomy: do new computer models improve spatial understanding? Med Teach. 1999;21:519-522.
Garg A, Norman GR, Spero L, Maheshwari P. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad Med. 1999;74:S87-S89.
Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet. 2001;357:363-364.
Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2007;12:491-507.
Hegarty M, Keehner M, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR. How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learn Individ Differ. 2009;19:61-70.
Hoyek N, Collet C, Rastello O, Fargier P, Thiriet P, Guillot A. Enhancement of mental rotation abilities and its effect on anatomy learning. Teach Learn Med. 2009;21:201-206.
Keedy AW, Durack JC, Sandhu P, Chen EM, O'Sullivan PS, Breiman RS. Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:84-91.
Kozhevnikov M, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of visualizers. Cogn Instr. 2002;20:47-77.
Kozhevnikov M, Kosslyn S, Shephard J. Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Mem Cogn. 2005;33:710-726.
Langlois J, Bellemare C, Toulouse J, Wells GA. Spatial abilities and anatomy knowledge assessment: a systematic review. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10:235-241.
Langlois J, Bellemare C, Toulouse J, Wells GA. Spatial abilities training in anatomy education: a systematic review. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;79:71-79.
Lezak M, Howieson D, Bigler E, Tranel D. Neuropsychological assessment. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 1161.
McCaffrey RJ, Westervelt HJ. Issues associated with repeated neuropsychological assessments. Neuropsychol Rev. 1995;5:203-221.
Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Computer visualizations: factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:98-108.
Peters M, Laeng B, Latham K, Jackson M, Zaiyouna R, Richardson C. A redrawn Vandenberg & Kuse mental rotations test different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain Cogn. 1995;28:39-58.
Provo J, Lamar C, Newby T. Using a cross section to train veterinary students to visualize anatomical structures in three dimensions. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:10-34.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023.
Roach VA, Mi M, Mussell J, Van Nuland SE, Lufler RS, DeVeau KM, et al. Correlating spatial ability with anatomy assessment performance: a meta-analysis. Anat Sci Educ. 2021;14:317-329.
Rochford K. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ. 1985;19:13-26.
Schubert S, Schnabel KP, Winkelmann A. Assessment of spatial anatomical knowledge with a ‘three-dimensional multiple choice test’ (3D-MC). Med Teach. 2009;31:e13-e17.
Tan S, Hu A, Wilson T, Ladak H, Haase P, Fung K. Role of a computer-generated three-dimensional laryngeal model in anatomy teaching for advanced learners. J Laryngol Otol. 2012;126:395-401.
Vandenberg S, Kuse A. Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills. 1978;47:599-604.
Vorstenbosch MATM, Bouter ST, van den Hurk MM, Kooloos JGM, Bolhuis SM, Laan RFJM. Exploring the validity of assessment in anatomy: do images influence cognitive processes used in answering extended matching questions? Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:107-116.
Vorstenbosch MATM, Klaassen TPFM, Kooloos JGM, Bolhuis SM, Laan RFJM. Do images influence assessment in anatomy? Exploring the effect of images on item difficulty and item discrimination. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:29-41.
Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:525-538.