Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Practical Exams Used in Evaluation of Anatomic Knowledge

Year 2020, Volume: 46 Issue: 3, 413 - 419, 01.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358

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.

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.

Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları

Year 2020, Volume: 46 Issue: 3, 413 - 419, 01.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358

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.

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.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Anatomy
Journal Section Review Articles
Authors

Senem Turan Ozdemır 0000-0002-0407-3608

Meriç Yıldız Yılmaz 0000-0003-3086-8727

Publication Date December 1, 2020
Acceptance Date October 27, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 46 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Turan Ozdemır, S., & Yıldız Yılmaz, M. (2020). Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(3), 413-419. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358
AMA Turan Ozdemır S, Yıldız Yılmaz M. Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları. Uludağ Tıp Derg. December 2020;46(3):413-419. doi:10.32708/uutfd.773358
Chicago Turan Ozdemır, Senem, and Meriç Yıldız Yılmaz. “Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları”. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 46, no. 3 (December 2020): 413-19. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358.
EndNote Turan Ozdemır S, Yıldız Yılmaz M (December 1, 2020) Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 46 3 413–419.
IEEE S. Turan Ozdemır and M. Yıldız Yılmaz, “Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları”, Uludağ Tıp Derg, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 413–419, 2020, doi: 10.32708/uutfd.773358.
ISNAD Turan Ozdemır, Senem - Yıldız Yılmaz, Meriç. “Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları”. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 46/3 (December 2020), 413-419. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.773358.
JAMA Turan Ozdemır S, Yıldız Yılmaz M. Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları. Uludağ Tıp Derg. 2020;46:413–419.
MLA Turan Ozdemır, Senem and Meriç Yıldız Yılmaz. “Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları”. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 46, no. 3, 2020, pp. 413-9, doi:10.32708/uutfd.773358.
Vancouver Turan Ozdemır S, Yıldız Yılmaz M. Anatomi Bilgisini Değerlendirmede Kullanılan Uygulama Sınavları. Uludağ Tıp Derg. 2020;46(3):413-9.

ISSN: 1300-414X, e-ISSN: 2645-9027

Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License" ile lisanslanmaktadır.


Creative Commons License
Journal of Uludag University Medical Faculty is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

2023