26 - The Influence of Anatomy Assessment Modality and Visuospatial Ability on Non-medical, Undergraduate Students’ Practical Examination Performance

Poster Board Number: 26
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : A shift from traditional to online assessment practices may help mitigate some financial and curricular-time constraints faced by human anatomy programs worldwide. Studies have demonstrated that online practical examinations (OP) are less resource-intensive compared to in-person practical examinations (IP). While considerable economic advantages merit the replacement of IP with OP, impact on student performance and perception should first be considered. Results in the literature are conflicting; while some studies have reported no significant differences in overall performance between traditional and online formats, others have demonstrated that students score significantly higher on IP compared to virtual applications displaying two-dimensional (2D) images. Disparities in student performance between modalities may result from differences in students’ visuospatial abilities (VA), a deemed predictor of success in gross anatomy education, due to 2D depictions of complex anatomical regions in online formats.

The aim of this study was to investigate: 1) the correlation between scores on VA tests and student performance in online and traditional assessment modalities, and 2) differences in student performance on assessment modalities within and between groups with varying VA scores.

Participants (n = 183) were undergraduate students enrolled in a dissection-based, human anatomy course at the University of Guelph. VA was measured using the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) adapted by Peters et al.; scores ranged from 0-24, with 0 and 24 denoting lowest and highest VA scores, respectively. MRT scores were subdivided into quartiles to group students with similar VA (e.g., Quartile 1 included students with the lowest MRT scores) for one-way ANOVA analysis. Student performance was assessed on a 60-item practical, which was divided into: 1) an online component containing 2D cadaveric-based, dissection images, and 2) an in-person component using students' dissections, prosections, and osteology. Similar content and cognitive levels (determined using the Blooming Anatomy Tool) were tested within each format. A crossover experimental design was employed; students were assigned to one of two groups, with order of test modality exposure differing between groups.

Multiple linear regression models established that MRT scores were positively correlated with examination scores within online [F(2,180) = 14.86, p < 0.005] and traditional formats [F(2,180) = 6.89, p < 0.005]. A one point-increase in MRT scores predicted 0.98% (p < 0.001) and 0.87% (p = 0.002) increases in examination scores in OP and IP, respectively. A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in examination scores between OP and IP within all MRT score quartiles. Students within Quartile 1 (MRT Score: 0-6; n = 42) performed similarly on OP and IP (p = 0.783, 95% C.I. = [-2.927, 3.879]).

Consistent with previously reported findings, this study demonstrates that VA is a predictor of success in anatomy assessments, regardless of modality. This study also reveals that students perform similarly on both online and traditional practical assessments, regardless of their VA. If solely considering impact on student performance, educators can confidently shift practical examinations to an online modality without disadvantaging learners with low VA, nor compromising student performance, in order to help mitigate resource constraints faced by human anatomy programs.