Korean J Phys Anthropol.  2018 Mar;31(1):1-7. 10.11637/kjpa.2018.31.1.1.

Relationship of Peer- and Self Assessments in the Anatomy Laboratory and Academic Performance of Gross Anatomy

• Kam BS
• Kim MJ
• Joo SI
• Yune SJ
• Im SJ
• Lee SY
• Yoon S
• Baek SY

• KMID: 2408312
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.2018.31.1.1

Abstract

Gross anatomy, with cadaver laboratory dissection, is in a unique position to preside over a rich number of activities such as the team work, integrity, active learning, communication in the small group-all aspects of professional conduct. The purposes of this study are to investigate the correlation of professionalism with academic performance and the characteristics of groups of students in the performance variables. First-year Pusan National University School of Medicine students (n=108) from the Class of 2015 taking the gross anatomy course were required to do the self- and peer assessment about the professional behaviors of each of the six members of their dissecting group. The students were classified into one of four subgroups based on their deviation from the self- and peer assessment medians, such as high peer/high self (HP/HS), high peer/low self (HP/LS), low peer/high self (LP/HS), low peer/low self (LP/LS). There were significant higher scores in the high peer groups (HP/HS, HP/LS) in comparison with low peer groups (LP/HS, LP/LS) in the academic performance of end-of-term (F=3.24), credit (F=3.54), pre-Lab (F=3.94), practical examination (F=3.60) scores. Significant correlations among academic performance variables were observed generally. There were some differences in the correlation in the practical examination and other variables. The relatively high correlation between practical examination and other variables is HP/HS, followed by LP/LS, LP/HS and then HP/LS. In conclusion, peer- and self assessment subgroups showed a significant differences in the academic performance. This assignment would be available to evaluate work habits of professionalism in the gross anatomy laboratory. It is suggested that HP/HS group was more adaptable in the contextual leaning the gross anatomy course.

Keyword

Anatomy laboratory; Professionalism; Peer assessment; Self assessment; Academic performance

MeSH Terms

Busan
Cadaver
Humans
Peer Group
Problem-Based Learning
Professionalism
Self-Assessment*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Knowledge and practical-related test scores of 4 groups. High Peer/High Self group showed a statistically significant difference with another 2 groups (Low Peer/High Self and Low Peer/Low Self) in the scores of end-of-course, credit, pre-Lab, and practical examinations. Data represents mean values± SE. LSD post hoc test results; Levels that are not significantly different one each other are represented with the same letter.

Reference

References

1. Swick HM, Szenas P, Danoff D, Whitcomb ME. Teaching professionalism in undergraduate medical education. JAMA. 1999; 282:830–2.

2. Cruess RL, Cruess SR. Expectations and obligations: Professionalism and medicine'social contract with society. Perspect Biol Med. 2008; 51:579–98.

3. Morihara SK, Jackson DS, Chun MB. Making the professional curriculum for undergraduate medical education more relevant. Med Teach. 2013; 35:908–14.

4. Swartz WJ. Using gross anatomy to teach and assess professionalism in the first year of medical school. Clin Anat. 2006; 19:437–42.

5. Escobar-Poni B, Poni ED. The role of gross anatomy in promoting professionalism: A neglected opportunity! Clin Anat. 2006; 19:461–7.

6. Heyns M. A strategy towards professionalism in the dissecting room. Eur J Anat. 2007; 11:85–9.

7. Bernabeo EC, Holmboe ES, Ross K, Chesluk B, Ginsburg S. The utility of vignettes to stimulate reflection on professionalism: Theory and practice. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013; 18:463–84.

8. Ahn DS. Korean doctor's role. J Kor Med Assoc. 2014; 57:3–7.

9. Parmelee DX, Hudes P. Team-based learning: A relevant strategy in health professionals'education. Med Teach. 2012; 34:411–3.

10. Arnold L, Shue CK, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern DT. Medical students'views on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20:819–24.

11. Camp CL, Gregory JK, Lachman N, Chen LP, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W. Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:64–72.

12. Bryan RE, Krych AJ, Carmichael SW, Viggiano TR, Pawlina W. Assessing professionalism in early medical education: Experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Acad Med Sing. 2005; 34:486–91.

13. Chen LO, Gregory JK, Camp CL, Juskewitch JE, Oawlina W, Lachman N. Learning to Lead: Self- and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure didactic block Anat Sci Edu. 2009; 2:210–7.

14. Eva KW. Assessing tutorial-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2001; 6:243–57.

15. Arnold L. Assessing professional behavior: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med. 2002; 77:502–15.

16. Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, Knettler TR, Rattner SL, Stern DT, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Eng J Med. 2005; 353:2673–82.

17. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New Eng J Med. 2007; 356:387–96.

18. Ferris H, O'Flynn D. Assessment in medical education: What are we trying to achieve? Int J Higher Educ. 2015; 4:139–44.

19. Heylings DJ, Stefani LAJ. Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Med Educ. 1997; 31:281–6.

20. Magzoub ME, Schmidt HG, Dolmans D. Assessing students in community settings: the role of peer evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1998; 3:3–13.

21. Greenbaum DS, Hoban JD. Teaching peer review at Michigan State University. J Med Educ. 1976; 51:392–5.

22. Van Rosendaal GM, Jennett PA. Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med. 1994; 69:299–303.

23. Morton JB, Macbeth WAAG. Correlations between staff, peer and self assessments of fourth-year students in sur-gery. Med Educ. 1977; 11:167–70.

24. Calhoun JG, Wooliscroft JO, Ten Haken JD, Wolf FM, Davis WK. Evaluating medical student clinical skill performance relationships among self, peer, and expert ratings. Eval Health Prof. 1988; 11:201–2.

25. Spandorfer J, Puklus T, Rose V, Vahedi M, Collins L, Giordano C, et al. Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013; 7:144–52.

26. Emke AR, Cheng S, Chen L, Tian D, Dufault C. A novel approach to assessing professionalism in preclinical medical students using multisource feedback through paired self- and peer evaluation. Teach Learn Med. 2017; 29:402–10.

27. Clough RW, Lehr RP. Testing knowledge of human gross anatomy in medicaol school: An applied contextual-learning theory method. Clin Anat. 1996; 9:263–8.