Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy

Khot, Zaid, Quinlan, Kaitlyn, Norman, Geoffrey R., Wainman, Bruce·2013·Anatomical Sciences Education

Abstract

There is increasing use of computer–based resources to teach anatomy, although no study has compared computer‐based learning to traditional. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of three formats of anatomy learning: (1) a virtual reality (VR) computer‐based module, (2) a static computer‐based module providing Key Views (KV), (3) a plastic model. We conducted a controlled trial in which 60 undergraduate students had ten minutes to study the names of 20 different pelvic structures. The outcome measure was a 25 item short answer test consisting of 15 nominal and 10 functional questions, based on a cadaveric pelvis. All subjects also took a brief mental rotations test (MRT) as a measure of spatial ability, used as a covariate in the analysis. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA. The group learning from the model performed significantly better than the other two groups on the nominal questions (Model 67%; KV 40%; VR 41%, Effect size 1.19 and 1.29, respectively). There was no difference between the KV and VR groups. There was no difference between the groups on the functional questions (Model 28%; KV, 23%, VR 25%). Computer‐based learning resources appear to have significant disadvantages compared to traditional specimens in learning nominal anatomy. Consistent with previous research, virtual reality shows no advantage over static presentation of key views. Anat Sci Educ 6: 211–215. © 2013 American Association of Anatomists.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ase.1355

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Khot, Z., Quinlan, K., Norman, G. R., & Wainman, B.
Venue
Anatomical Sciences Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-18
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
211-215
ISSN
  • 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-9780
OpenAlex
W1529289001
Cited by
274
References
31
FWCI
6.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.