Correlating Spatial Ability With Anatomy Assessment Performance: A Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

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.

Responding to Covid‐19: A thematic analysis of students' perspectives on modified learning activities during an emergency transition to remote human anatomy education

“…Some asked for the inclusion of digital anatomy models to allow for three‐dimensional manipulation of anatomical structures, and also suggested that these tools could be used in Zoom breakout rooms to supplement their spatial understanding of anatomical structures (Azer & Azer, 2016 ). However, while helpful, these programs can be challenging to use for both the learner and instructor (Doubleday et al, 2011 ; Attardi et al, 2016 ), and the three‐dimensional models on monoscopic digital displays may disadvantage learners with low spatial abilities (see Roach et al, 2021 for review). Given these mixed outcomes, instructors considering providing increased access to cadaveric materials and anatomy digital displays should proceed with caution and ensure that multiple equivalent learning resources are made available to accommodate students' varied learning preferences and abilities.…”

“…Although the students in this course were both taught and tested on cadaveric images, which gives the appearance of alignment, they may have been less equipped to orient and understand two-dimensional cadaveric images without the three-dimensional hands-on learning experience that the laboratory would have provided. Viewing physical structures with true stereopsis has been shown to be crucial to learning in human anatomy (Wainman et al, 2018(Wainman et al, , 2020, especially for students with low visuospatial abilities (Cui et al, 2017;Bogomolova et al, 2020;Meyer & Cui, 2020;Roach et al, 2021). Furthermore, in-person laboratory environments have been shown to promote deep rather than surface approaches to learning in anatomy (Smith & Mathias, 2010;McWatt et al, 2021), which are associated with higher quality learning outcomes (Pandey & Zimitat, 2007).…”

Decline of Cadaveric Dissection in Anatomy Education During the Covid‐19 Pandemic: Can it Affect Future Surgeons’ Competency?

“…It was also stated that a decline of cadaveric dissection in anatomy education could be detrimental for future surgeons' skills and patients' safety, but without citations. Instead, the author cited several articles (Ellis, 2002;Pawlina and Lachman, 2004;Regenbogen et al, 2007;Holland et al, 2011) to show that cadaveric dissection is significant in medical and surgical training. However, none of these articles provided evidence that surgical mistakes were correlated with absence of cadaveric dissection from anatomy education.…”

“…This fact does not mean that threedimensional visualization technologies do not have drawbacks. For example, it has been shown that if anatomy educators provide learners with redundant visuospatial information, they negatively influence students with low visual-spatial abilities (Roach et al, 2021). As it was demonstrated in the review article by Hu et al (2018), both traditional and modern modalities of surgical anatomy teaching are needed to achieve the best possible educational outcomes.…”

Assessing the Wider Outcomes of Anatomy Education

“…Within the issue, quantitative and meta-analysis studies demonstrate the need to design assessments that effectively evaluate cognitive levels that match the level of learner, particularly when assessing clinical anatomy concepts (Thompson and Giffin, 2021), and appropriately accommodate differences in the spatial ability of students including the use of non-addictive visual signaling and minimizing redundant visuospatial information (Roach et al, 2021). Another report indicates that the assessment format should be designed to align effectively with the method of instruction and future application of knowledge in clinical practice (Fournier and Groh, 2021).…”