Effect of Interventions on Spatial Abilities in Anatomy Education: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Spatial abilities have been correlated to anatomy knowledge assessment using practical examination, 3D‐synthesis from 2D‐views, drawing of views, and cross‐sections in a previous systematic review. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of interventions on spatial abilities in the field of anatomy education. Methods Search criteria included ‘interventions', ‘spatial abilities' and ‘anatomy’. Keywords related to these criteria were defined. A literature search was conducted to August 3, 2017 in Scopus and EBSCOhost platform (Medline with Full Text, Cinahl Plus with Full Text, ERIC, Education Source, and PsycInfo). Citations were reviewed and those involving the field of anatomy education, an intervention, and a spatial abilities test were retained and the corresponding full‐text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Citations related to abstracts, literature reviews, books, book sections, and theses were excluded. Citations and full‐text articles were reviewed by two independent investigators. Methods in the field of anatomy education relating an intervention to spatial abilities test scores obtained before and after the intervention were identified as eligible. Eligible articles were reviewed in a systematic way and assessed for quality using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network‐50 assessment instruments. Effect sizes using standardized mean differences were calculated since different measurement scales for spatial abilities test scores were used. If I 2 was greater than 50%, then heterogeneity was formally evaluated and random effects model was considered. Results Of the 2405 citations obtained, 52 articles were identified and reviewed, yielding 8 eligible articles. Instruction in anatomy and mental rotations training were found to improve spatial abilities. For the 7 studies retained for the meta‐analysis that included the effect of interventions on spatial abilities test scores, the pooled difference was 0.68 [95% CI (0.40; 0.95); n = 11] improvement with an I 2 of 82%. For the 2 studies that included the practice effect on spatial abilities test scores in a control group, the pooled difference was 0.59 [95% CI (0.41; 0.76); n = 2] improvement with an I 2 of 0%. In these 2 studies, the impact of the intervention on spatial abilities test scores was found valid despite the practice effect. Conclusion Evidence was found for improvement of spatial abilities in the field of anatomy education using instruction in anatomy and mental rotations training. Support or Funding Information Funding: none. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».