Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Brenner, Erich; Chirculescu, Andy R M; Reblet, ConcepciĆ³n; Smith, Claire (2015)
Publisher: Spanish Society of Anatomy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QM0001
From an educational perspective, a very important problem is that of assessment, for establishing competency and as selection criterion for different professional purposes. Among the issues to be addressed are the methods of assessment and/or the type of tests, the range of scores, or the definition of honour degrees. The methods of assessment comprise such different forms such as the spotter examination, short or long essay questions, short answer questions, true-false questions, single best answer questions, multiple choice questions, extended match questions, or several forms of oral approaches such as viva voce examinations.Knowledge about this is important when assessing different educational objectives; assessing educational objectives from the cognitive domain will need different assessment instruments than assessing educational objectives from the psychomotor domain or even the affective domain.There is no golden rule, which type of assessment instrument or format will be the best in measuring certain educational objectives; but one has to respect that there is no assessment instrument, which is capable to assess educational objectives from all domains of educational objectives.Whereas the first two or three levels of progress can be assessed by well-structured written examinations such as multiple choice questions, or multiple answer questions, other and higher level progresses need other instruments, such as a thesis, or direct observation.This is no issue at all in assessment tools, where the students are required to select the appropriate answer from a given set of choices, as in true false questions, MCQ, EMQ, etc. The standard setting is done in these cases by the selection of the true answer.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • critical care in surgery. Med Teach, 19(3): 190-193.
    • FLEXNER A (1910) Medical education in the United States and Canada. A report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York.
    • FLEXNER A (2002) Medical education in the United States and Canada. Bull World Health Organ, 80(7): 594-602.
    • GARG AX, NORMAN G, SPEROTABLE L (2001) How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet, 357(9253): 363-364.
    • GIBBS G, HABESHAW T (1989) Preparing to teach. An Introduction to effective teaching in higher education. Technical & Educational Services Ltd, Bristol.
    • Guilbert J-J (1998) Classification of professional tasks into three domains: practical, communication and intellectual skills. In: GUILBERT J-J (ed). Educational Handbook for Health Personnel. World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1.50-51.54.
    • MILLER GE (1990) The assessment of clinical skills/ competence/performance. Acad Med, 65(9): S63-67.
    • MORRIS J, CHIRCULESCU A (2007) Structure and assessment of a short intense clinical anatomy course shortly before clinical studies. Eur J Anat, 11(S1): 95-98.
    • NORCINI JJ (2003) Setting standards on educational tests. Med Educ, 37(5): 464-469.
    • PEEL S (1998) An innovative problem-solving assessment for groups of first-year medical undergraduatesThink Tanks. Med Educ, 32(1): 35-39.
    • SCHUBERT S, SCHNABEL KP, WINKELMANN A (2009) Assessment of spatial anatomical knowledge with a 'three-dimensional multiple choice test' (3D-MC). Med Teach, 31(1): 13-17.
    • SIMPSON E (1971) Educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. In: KAPFER MB (ed). Behavioral Objectives in Curriculum Development: Selected Readings and Bibliography. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 60-67.
    • HARROW AJ (1972) A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain. David McKey, New York.
    • SINCLAIR DC (1965) An experiment in the teaching of anatomy. Acad Med, 40(5): 401-413.
    • HEYLINGS D (2002) Anatomy 1999-2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ, 36(8): 702-710.
    • HEYNS M (2007) A strategy towards professionalism in the dissecting room. Eur J Anat, 11(S1): 85-88.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article