The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of computer‐aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six‐year study
Open accessAbstract
Web‐based computer‐aided instruction (CAI) has become increasingly important to medical curricula. This multi‐year study investigated the effectiveness of CAI and the factors affecting level of individual use. Three CAI were tested that differed in specificity of applicability to the curriculum and in the level of student interaction with the CAI. Student personality preferences and learning styles were measured using the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Information on “computer literacy” and use of CAI was collected from student surveys. Server logs were used to quantify individual use of respective CAI. There was considerable variability in the level of utilization of each CAI by individual students. Individual use of each CAI differed and was associated with gender, MBTI preferences and learning style, but not with “computer literacy.” The majority of students found the CAI useful for learning and used the CAI by themselves. Students who accessed the CAI resources most frequently scored significantly higher on exams compared with students who never accessed the resources. Our results show that medical students do not uniformly use CAI developed for their curriculum and this variability is associated with various attributes of individual students. Our data also provide evidence of the importance of understanding student preferences and learning styles when implementing CAI into the curriculum. Anat Sci Ed 2:2–8, 2009. © 2009 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Impact of E-Learning in Medical Education
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002 · Cited by 2,240
Cited by
The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.139 · Cited by 991
The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy
Khot, Z., Quinlan, K., Norman, G. R., & Wainman, B. (2013) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1355 · Cited by 274
Trelease, R. B. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1620 · Cited by 266
Khalil, M. K., Nelson, L. D., & Kibble, J. D. (2010) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.177 · Cited by 57
Nursing students' experiences and perceptions of an anatomy laboratory session: Mixed methods study
Asman, O., Kagan, I., & Itzhaki, M. (2022) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2106 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- McNulty, J. A., Sonntag, B., & Sinacore, J. M.
- Venue
- Anatomical Sciences Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-8
- ISSN
- 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-9780
- OpenAlex
- W2072077591
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of computer‐aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six‐year study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ase.66
- The paper
- McNulty, J. A., Sonntag, B., & Sinacore, J. M. (2009). Evaluation of computer‐aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six‐year study. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.66
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.