BackgroundMobile‐based applications (Apps) are one of the fastest growing trends in educational technology. A search on the iTunes App Store, for example, results in 142 Apps in response to the search term “anatomy”. However, most educational Apps are not peer‐reviewed. The quality and accuracy are suspect, and few have been evaluated in the classroom. A comprehensive resource that provides guidance as to the educational usefulness, quality, and content accuracy of Apps in the anatomical sciences is needed.Aims To triangulate existing educational technology frameworks into a framework for evaluating anatomy education Apps With a national sample of academic technology leads, faculty and students, test and validate the framework MethodsPhase 1 triangulated peer‐reviewed articles on Apps, with known educational technology frameworks from the literature (Hanrahan et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Romrell et al., 2014; Ruiz et al., 2006; Van Nuland et al., 2017). Phase 2 validated the framework in two steps. Phase 2A used chain referral sampling (i.e. n = 6 with at least one educational technology lead from each of the four AAMC regions: East, West, South, and Central) to obtain feedback. In Phase 2B, participants were recruited from Anatomy Connected Open Forum and through chain referral sampling (n = 58 agreed to participate). Participants applied the revised framework to two anatomy apps (Complete Anatomy and Heart Pro III) and completed a content validity survey. All methods were approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.ResultsPhase 1 resulted in the formation of a framework that was revised in Phase 2a and is hosted here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1s5VWA1OfE‐HGNLz_LezMb3ngofPztRaOb7PFCXl_jjc/viewform?edit_requested=true. A total of 25 participants (14 faculty, 4 tech leads and 7 students) fulfilled all parts of Phase 2b to completion. Content validity was analyzed using Lawshe's content validity ratio; critical values (>0.39 as determined by Wilson et al., 2012) with 0.05 significance for two‐tailed test were achieved with 11 of the 26 criteria, including usability, organization, reliability, navigation, self‐assessment, content breadth, content depth, content accuracy, multimedia accuracy, recommendation for others, and overall value.Discussion and ConclusionAnatomy Education App framework validation presents a major asset for students, faculty and administrators based on feedback from a national panel; the framework is freely available. The validation is limited by the low number of respondents, but will be enhanced as more investigators apply the framework to their research.Support or Funding InformationRymer Small Grants Program, Academy of Medical Educators, University of Colorado School of MedicineThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.