Cogprints
Login | Create Account

Medical Student Dissection of Cadavers Improves Performance on Practical Exams but not on the NBME Anatomy Subject Exam

Sargent Jones PhD, Leslie and Paulman PhD, Lance E. and Thandani MS, Raj and Terracio PhD, Louis (2001) Medical Student Dissection of Cadavers Improves Performance on Practical Exams but not on the NBME Anatomy Subject Exam. [Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)]

[img]
Preview
PDF
47Kb

Abstract

We have examined whether cadaver dissection by first year medical students (MIs) affected their performance in two test measures: the NBME Gross Anatomy and Embryology Subject Exam (dissection-relevant questions only), and practical exams given at the end of each major section within the course. The dissections for the entire course were divided into 18 regional dissection units and each student was assigned to dissect one third of the regional units; the other two-thirds of the material was learned from the partner-prosected cadavers. Performance for each student on the exams was then assessed as a function of the regions those students actually dissected. While the results indicated a small performance advantage for MIs answering questions on material they had dissected on the NBME Subject Exam questions relevant to dissection (78-88% of total exam), the results were not statistically significant. However, a similar, small performance advantage on the course practical exams was highly significant.

Item Type:Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)
Keywords:Medical Education; Health Professional Education; Basic science education; prosection; radiology;osteology
Subjects:JOURNALS > Medical Education Online > MEO Peer Reviewed
ID Code:2419
Deposited By:David, Solomon
Deposited On:22 Aug 2002
Last Modified:19 Dec 2009 19:18

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. Jones LS, Welsh MG, Terracio L. First year medical students’ views on computer programs:" give us our teaching assistants." FASEB Journal 1998;12:5635

2. Bernard GR. Prosection demonstrations as substitutes for the conventional human gross anatomy laboratory. J Med Educ. 1972;47:724-8.

3. Peppler RD, Kwasigroch, TE Hougland, MW. Evaluation of simultaneous teaching of extremities in a gross anatomy program. J Med Educ.1985;60:635-9.

4. Nnodim JO, Ohnaka EC, Osuji CU. A follow-up comparative study of two modes of learning human anatomy: by dissection and from prosections. Clin Anat. 1996;9:258-62.

5. Yeager VL. Peer teaching in gross anatomy. J Med Educ 1981;56:922.

6. Nnodim JO. Learning human anatomy: by dissection or from prosections? J Med Educ. 1990;24:389-95.

7. Nnodim JO. A controlled trial of peer-teaching in practical gross anatomy. Clin Anat. 1997;10:112-7.

8. Yeager VL Learning gross anatomy: dissection and prosection. Clin Anat. 1996;9:57-9.

9. Jones LS, Paulman LE, Terracio L. Does cadaver dissecting by students affect their gross anatomy practical exam performance? FASEB Journal 1999;13:770.4.

10. Terracio L, Thadani R, and Jones LS. Does the process of dissecting by students affect their performance on the NBME Gross Anatomy and Embryology final? FASEB Journal 1999;13:770.5.

11. Terracio L, Welsh MG, and Jones, LS. Simultaneous teaching of first year and fourth year gross anatomy: a win-win situation. FASEB Journal 1995; 9:6162.

12. Stanford W, Erkonen WE, Cassell MD, Moran BD, Easley G, Carris RL, Albanese MA Evaluation of a computer-based program for teaching cardiac anatomy. Invest Radiol. 1994;29:248-52.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.