Journal List > Korean J Phys Anthropol > v.31(1) > 1039255

TOOLS
Kam, Kim, Joo, Yune, Im, Lee, Yoon, and Baek: Relationship of Peer- and Self Assessments in the Anatomy Laboratory and Academic Performance of Gross Anatomy
Original Article

Korean J Phys Anthropol 2018;31(1):1-7.

Published online: 20 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.2018.31.1.1

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

Bee Sung Kam2, Min Jeong Kim1, Seung II Joo1, So Jung Yune2, Sun Ju Im2, Sang Yeoup Lee2, Sik Yoon1, Sun Yong Baek1, 2,

1Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Pusan National University

2Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Pusan National University

Correspondence to: Sun Yong Baek (Department of Anatomy, Pusan National University School of Medicine) E-mail: sybaek@pusan.ac.kr

Received 5 December 2017       Revised 2 January 2018       Accepted 9 January 2018

Copyright © 2018 Korean Association of Physical Anthropologists

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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.

Keywords: Anatomy laboratory, Professionalism, Peer assessment, Self assessment, Academic performance

References

1. Swick HM, Szenas P, Danoff D, Whitcomb ME. Teaching professionalism in undergraduate medical education. JAMA. 1999; 282:830–2.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
8. Ahn DS. Korean doctor's role. J Kor Med Assoc. 2014; 57:3–7.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
17. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New Eng J Med. 2007; 356:387–96.
crossref
18. Ferris H, O'Flynn D. Assessment in medical education: What are we trying to achieve? Int J Higher Educ. 2015; 4:139–44.
crossref
19. Heylings DJ, Stefani LAJ. Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Med Educ. 1997; 31:281–6.
crossref
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.
crossref
22. Van Rosendaal GM, Jennett PA. Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med. 1994; 69:299–303.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.

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.
kjpa-31-1f1.tif
Table 1.
Correlation of variables each other for high peer/high self group
Variables End-of-course End-of-term Credit Summative Pre-Lab Practical
End-of-course –          
End-of-term 0.69∗∗ –        
Credit 0.83∗∗ 0.67∗∗ –      
Summative 0.47∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.58∗∗ –    
Pre-Lab 0.64∗∗ 0.67∗∗ 0.68∗∗ 0.53∗∗ –  
Practical 0.47∗∗ 0.31 0.40∗ 0.37∗ 0.59∗∗ –

∗ P<0.05

∗∗ P<0.01

Table 2.
Correlation of variables each other for high peer/low self group
Variables End-of-course End-of-term Credit Summative Pre-Lab Practical
End-of-course –          
End-of-term 0.68∗∗ –        
Credit 0.88∗∗ 0.70∗∗ –      
Summative 0.58∗ 0.45 0.46 –    
Pre-Lab 0.72∗∗ 0.67∗∗ 0.77∗∗ 0.29 –  
Practical 0.17 – 0.22 0.16 0.07 0.10 –

∗ P<0.05

∗∗ P<0.01

Table 3.
Correlation of variables each other for low peer/high self group
Variables End-of-course End-of-term Credit Summative Pre-Lab Practical
End-of-course –          
End-of-term 0.56∗∗ –        
Credit 0.82∗∗ 0.68∗∗ –      
Summative 0.60∗∗ 0.58∗∗ 0.77∗∗ –    
Pre-Lab 0.61∗∗ 0.28 0.68∗∗ 0.59∗∗ –  
Practical 0.31 0.39 0.41 0.67∗∗ 0.45 –

∗ P<0.05

∗∗ P<0.01

Table 4.
Correlation of variables each other for low peer/low self group
Variables End-of-course End-of-term Credit Summative Pre-Lab Practical
End-of-course –          
End-of-term 0.55∗∗ –        
Credit 0.67∗∗ 0.50∗∗ –      
Summative 0.30∗∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.55∗∗ –    
Pre-Lab 0.63∗∗ 0.61 0.75∗∗ 0.37∗∗ –  
Practical 0.48 0.19 0.49 0.19∗∗ 0.32 –

∗ P<0.05

∗∗ P<0.01

TOOLS
Similar articles