Does alternating dissection effect student performance on practical examinations (LB29)

Abstract

In the process of restructuring the Gross Anatomy course for first‐year osteopathic medical students a new lab model was introduced, with teams alternately performing the dissection of midline regions. To evaluate the effectiveness of the new model, we compared practical examination performance from 2 years based on whether or not they were in the dissecting or non‐dissecting lab group. Each practical question was assigned a body region and tissue type. A random intercept logistic regression model was fit to the data and the outcome variable was whether or not the student correctly identified the structure. The random effects were the students, each question asked during the practical exams and the assigned table number. The predictor variables included if the student had dissected the structure in an assigned lab, the region the anatomical structure is found and tissue type.Statistical analysis of the data indicates that there was no significant difference (p=.34) in student performance between the dissecting and non‐dissecting groups as a whole. Detailed comparisons indicated that in certain areas it might be more beneficial to have the whole class dissecting, as students who were not present for dissection of pelvic and abdominal neurovasculature did not perform as well on these questions. In conclusion students are capable of mastering the lab material in this curricular model.