A Systematic Review of Spatial Ability & Anatomy Performance: It’s time for a metaanalysis

Abstract

Rationale Spatial ability has been defined theoretically as ‘the ability to make use of simulated mental imagery (often in conjunction with currently perceived images) to solve problems'. Despite being among the most investigated factors of human cognitive functioning, spatial ability has been relegated to a secondary status within human intelligence research due to inconsistent evidence supporting spatial skills as predictors for educational success. Recently, however, interest in spatial ability within the anatomical community has grown, due to correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. As a result, a substantial volume of contemporary research has focused on further uncovering the role that spatial ability plays in anatomical knowledge acquisition and retention. As such, this current study utilized a systematic review (to be followed by a meta‐analysis) to identify the extent to which spatial ability affects performance in anatomy. Methods Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (2019–1969) were searched for across eight databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. Study outcomes were first thematically analyzed (reported herein) and will be followed by a true meta‐analysis. Results A total of 2,458 records were screened, 59 underwent full‐text review, and 21 studies (k) were included for final analysis. Of these studies, 57% (12 of 21) were from North America, most (15 of 21) studied graduate/professional students, and all were published in 2000 or later, except for one study from 1985. Most studies (71%; 15 of 21) evaluated the association between spatial ability and anatomy performance using the Mental Rotations Test (k=14) and some form of a practical assessment of anatomical knowledge (k=15). Of the 15 correlational studies 6, 7, and 2 reported significant, non‐significant, and inconclusive findings respectively. The prevalence of conflicting studies further necessitates the need for a meta‐analysis, which is currently underway. Conclusions High spatial ability is often associated with better scores in anatomy, but some studies show no association. In the absence of a meta‐analysis, it is challenging to interpret the literature to determine the significance of practical implications, such as providing students with different study techniques or presentation modalities depending on their level of spatial ability. Only a meta‐analysis will better inform our understanding of the current literature.

Role of spatial ability, motivation and anxiety in learning neuroanatomy

“…Developed originally in 1971 (Shepard & Metzler, 1971), the MRT has been adapted (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978) and redrawn (Peters et al, 1995) to stay relevant to educational research. In Roach et al's (2020) paper, across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (r pooled = 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 utilising nonspatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability (Roach et al, 2020).…”

“…In Roach et al's (2020) paper, across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (r pooled = 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 utilising nonspatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability (Roach et al, 2020). A study of 13 undergraduate health science students showed a significant correlation between spatial ability and neuroanatomy test scores (Brewer et al, 2012).…”