Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorMerzougui, Wassim H.
dc.contributor.authorMyers, Matthew A.
dc.contributor.authorHall, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorElmansouri, Ahmad
dc.contributor.authorParker, Rob
dc.contributor.authorRobson, Alistair D.
dc.contributor.authorKurn, Octavia
dc.contributor.authorParrott, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorGeoghegan, Kate
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, Charlotte H.
dc.contributor.authorAnbu, Deepika
dc.contributor.authorDean, Oliver
dc.contributor.authorBorder, Scott
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-01T15:30:24Z
dc.date.available2021-03-01T15:30:24Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-16
dc.identifier.citationMerzougui , W H , Myers , M A , Hall , S , Elmansouri , A , Parker , R , Robson , A D , Kurn , O , Parrott , R , Geoghegan , K , Harrison , C H , Anbu , D , Dean , O & Border , S 2021 , ' Multiple-choice versus open‐ended questions in advanced clinical neuroanatomy : using a national neuroanatomy assessment to investigate variability in performance using different question types ' , Anatomical Sciences Education , vol. Early View . https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2053en
dc.identifier.issn1935-9772
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 273108870
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: d5e2a2e1-7532-487a-bb30-8a13ff2da3ae
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000618229100001
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85101448336
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/21533
dc.description.abstractMethods of assessment in anatomy vary across medical schools in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond; common methods include written, spotter, and oral assessment. However, there is limited research evaluating these methods in regards to student performance and perception. The National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC) is held annually for medical students throughout the UK. Prior to 2017, the competition asked open-ended questions (OEQ) in the anatomy spotter examination, and in subsequent years also asked single best answer (SBA) questions. The aim of this study is to assess medical students' performance on, and perception of, SBA and OEQ methods of assessment in a spotter style anatomy examination. Student examination performance was compared between OEQ (2013-2016) and SBA (2017-2020) for overall score and each neuroanatomical subtopic. Additionally, a questionnaire explored students' perceptions of SBAs. A total of 631 students attended the NUNC in the studied period. The average mark was significantly higher in SBAs compared to OEQs (60.6% vs. 43.1%, P <0.0001)-this was true for all neuroanatomical subtopics except the cerebellum. Students felt that they performed better on SBA than OEQs, and diencephalon was felt to be the most difficult neuroanatomical subtopic (n = 38, 34.8%). Students perceived SBA questions to be easier than OEQs and performed significantly better on them in a neuroanatomical spotter examination. Further work is needed to ascertain whether this result is replicable throughout anatomy education.
dc.format.extent10
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnatomical Sciences Educationen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2021 The Authors. Anatomical Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for Anatomy. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en
dc.subjectGross anatomy educationen
dc.subjectNeuroanatomy anatomy educationen
dc.subjectMedical educationen
dc.subjectUndergraduate educationen
dc.subjectMethods of assessmentsen
dc.subjectAnatomy assessmenten
dc.subjectLB2300 Higher Educationen
dc.subjectQM Human anatomyen
dc.subjectR Medicineen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subject.lccLB2300en
dc.subject.lccQMen
dc.subject.lccRen
dc.titleMultiple-choice versus open‐ended questions in advanced clinical neuroanatomy : using a national neuroanatomy assessment to investigate variability in performance using different question typesen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Medicineen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2053
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record