Practical Exams Used in Evaluation of Anatomic Knowledge

Year 2020, , 413 - 419, 01.12.2020

Senem Turan Ozdemır , Meriç Yıldız Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Anatomy is an essential pillar of the Medical Education curriculum before graduation. Evaluating anatomy teaching-learning outcomes is a complex task, as anatomy is a broad and fundamental science discipline. Inter-institutional differences in practice, measurement, and evaluation mainly involve three areas: theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, and clinical expertise. This review tried to give information about the main types of practice exams widely used to measure anatomy practical knowledge.

Keywords

Anatomy, Evaluation, Exam, Practical Examination

Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları

Abstract

Anatomi mezuniyet öncesi Tıp Eğitimi müfredatının önemli bir ayağıdır. Anatomi öğretme-öğrenme çıktılarının değerlendirilmesi süreci, bu temel bilim disiplini geniş bir konu olduğundan karmaşık bir iştir. Uygulamada kurumlar arası farklılıklar olmakla birlikte ölçme ve değerlendirme temel olarak üç alanı içerir: teorik bilgi, pratik bilgi ve klinik bilgi. Bu derlemede anatomi pratik bilgisinin ölçülmesinde kullanılan belli başlı uygulama sınav tipleri hakkında bilgi verilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

anatomi, değerlendirme, sınav, Uygulama Sınavı

References

• 1. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007;89:104–7.
• 2. Lukić IK, Gluncić V, Katavić V, Petanjek Z, Jalšovec D, Marušić A. Weekly quizzes in ex-tended‐matching format as means of monitoring students' progress in gross anatomy. Ann Anat 2001;183:575–9.
• 3. Rowland S, Ahmed K, Davies DC, Ashrafian H, Patel V, Darzi A, Paraskeva PA, Athana-siou T. Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: perceptions of clinicians and students. Surg Radiol Anat 2011;33:263–9.
• 4. Sagoo MG, Smith CF, Gosden E. Assessment of anatomical knowledge by practical exami-nations: The effect of question design on student performance. Anat Sci Educ 2016;9:446–52.
• 5. Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P. What is an objective structured practical ex-amination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 2013;6:125–33.
• 6. Zafar M, Yaqinuddin A, Ikram F, Ganguly P. Practical Examinations OSPE, OSCE and SPOT. In: Ganguly P (eds). Education in Anatomical Sciences. New York: Nova Publishers; 2013. 223-37.
• 7. Smith CF, McManus B. The integrated anatomy practical paper: A robust assessment method for anatomy education today. Anat Sci Educ 2015;8:63–73.
• 8. Ranjan R, Jain A, Bhujade R. OSPE in anatomy: New dimensions in assesment. Int J Anat Res 2016;4(1):1789-94.
• 9. Tirpude AP, Gaikwad M, Tirpude PA, Jain M, Bora S. Retrospective analysis of prevalent anatomy spotter’s examination: an educational audit. Korean J Med Educ 2019;31(2):115-24.
• 10. Schoeman S, Chandratilake M. The anatomy competence score—A new marker for anato-mical ability. Anat Sci Educ 2012;5:33-40.
• 11. Chirculescu AR, Chirculescu M, Morris JF. Anatomical teaching for medical students from the perspective of European Union enlargement. Eur J Anat 2007;11:63-5.
• 12. Choudhury B, Gouldsborough I, Shaw FL. The intelligent anatomy spotter: A new ap-proach to incorporate higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Anat Sci Educ 2016;9:440–5.
• 13. Alraddadi A, Khawaji B, Alharbi Y, Agha S, Masuadi E, Magzoub ME. Introducing short answer questions in anatomy spot test. 35th Annual Meeting of American Association of Clini-cal Anatomists. Atlanta. 2018
• 14. Newble DI, Entwistle NJ. Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical educa-tion. Med Educ 1986;20(3):162-75.
• 15. Choudhury B, Freemont A. Assessment of anatomical knowledge: Approaches taken by higher education institutions. Clinical Anatomy 2017;30:290–9.
• 16. Chakravarty M, Latif NA, Abu-Hijleh MF, Osman M, Dharap AS, Ganguly PK. Assess-ment of anatomy in a problem-based medical curriculum. Clin Anat 2005;18(2):131-6.
• 17. Nayar U, Malik SL, Bijlanı RL. Objective structured practical examination: a new concept in assessment of laboratory exercises in preclinical sciences. Med Edu 1986;20(3):204-9.
• 18. Cherian SB. COSPE in anatomy: An innovative method of evaluation. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2017;5(5):325-7.
• 19. Torke S, Upadhya S, Abraham RR, Ramnarayan K. Computer-assisted objective-structured practical examination: an innovative method of evaluation. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30(1):48-9.
• 20. 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(2):111-20.
• 21. Dennick R, Wilkinson S, Purcell N. Online eAssessment: AMEE guide no. 39. Med Teach. 2009;31:192–206.
• 22. Daly FJ. Use of electronic anatomy practical examinations for remediating “at risk” students. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:46–9.
• 23. 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.
• 24. Inuwa IM, Al Rawahy M, Taranikanti V, Habbal O. Anatomy “steeplechase” online: Ne-cessity sometimes is the catalyst for innovation. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:115–8.
• 25. Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al‐Rawahy M, Habbal O. Perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards two methods of assessing practical anatomy knowledge. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2011;11:383–90.