Search

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta‐analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011–2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta‐analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9–69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta‐analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969–2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full‐text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta‐analyzed. Seventy‐three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (rpooled = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship‐based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non‐spatial multiple‐choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While prior meta‐analyses in anatomy education have explored the effects of laboratory pedagogies and histology media on learner performance, the effects of student‐centered learning (SCL) and computer‐aided instruction (CAI) have not been broadly evaluated. This research sought to answer the question, "How effective are student‐centered pedagogies and CAI at increasing student knowledge gains in anatomy compared to traditional didactic approaches?" Relevant studies published within the past 51 years were searched using five databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of SCL and CAI on anatomy performance outcomes. A moderator analysis of study features was also performed. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full‐text review. Seven studies, which comprised 1,564 participants, were included in the SCL analysis. An additional 19 studies analyzed the effects of CAI in the context of 2,570 participants. Upon comparing SCL to traditional instruction, a small positive effect on learner performance was detected (standardized mean difference (SMD = 0.24; [CI = 0.07, 0.42]; P = 0.006). Likewise, students with CAI exposure moderately outscored those with limited or no access to CAI (SMD = 0.59; [CI = 0.20, 0.98]; P = 0.003). Further analysis of CAI studies identified effects (P ≤ 0.001) for learner population, publication period, interventional approach, and intervention frequency. Overall, learners exposed to SCL and supplemental CAI outperformed their more classically‐trained peers as evidenced by increases in short‐term knowledge gains. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Over nearly two decades, a wealth of literature describing the various capabilities, uses and adaptations of virtual microscopy ( VM) has been published. Many studies have investigated the effects on and benefits to student learning of VM compared with optical microscopy ( OM). Objectives This study statistically aggregated the findings of multiple comparative studies through a meta-analysis in order to summarise and substantiate the pedagogical efficacy of teaching with VM. Methods Using predefined eligibility criteria, teams of paired researchers screened the titles and abstracts of VM studies retrieved from seven different databases. After two rounds of screening, numerical and thematic data were extracted from the eligible studies for analysis. A summary effect size and estimate of heterogeneity were calculated to determine the effects of VM on learner performance and the amount of variance between studies, respectively. Trends in student perceptions were also analysed and reported. Results Of the 725 records screened, 72 studies underwent full-text review. In total, 12 studies were viable for meta-analysis and additional studies were reviewed to extract themes relating to learners' perceptions of VM. The meta-analysis detected a small yet significant positive effect on learner performance (standardised mean difference 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.47; p = 0.003), indicating that learners experience marked knowledge gains when exposed to VM over OM. Variation among studies was evident as high heterogeneity was reported. An analysis of trends in learner perceptions noted that respondents favoured VM over OM by a large margin. Conclusions Although many individual studies have reported non-significant findings in comparisons of VM and OM, the enhanced power afforded by meta-analysis revealed that the pedagogical approach of VM is modestly superior to that of OM and is preferred by learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]