NLM Home Page VHP Home Page

Next: Conclusions Up: Title Page Previous: Test Protocol Index: Full Text Index Contents: Conference Page 

Results

      The primary aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the PSLM. The method involved the selecting of student population, material suited for required testing protocol, scheduling time for the research study, and then calibrating the results. The images from The Visible Human Project, sponsored by the National Library of Medicine, offered an excellent model for these studies.

      The following was achieved in these studies:

    2.  The study period materials for both Group A and Group B appeared adequate to show a significant difference between the pretest and the posttest. Group A used study materials consistent with the PSLM protocol, while Group B was issued a randomly labeled identical image for study.
       

      Twenty-eight (28) students took the first set of posttests, and listed their answers according to guidelines indicating the brain layer/parts, and no multiple choice questions related to the structures’ relative position were administered (Table 1).

Table 1: First set of PSLM Studies
 
Variable Number of Cases Mean SD SE of Mean
Group A 15 9.6667 1.589 0.410
Group B 13 3.1538 3.023 0.839

Levine's Test for Equality of Variance: F= 4.395 P= 0.046
t-test of equality of means
Variances t-value df 2-Tail Sig SE of Difference 95% CI of Diff
Equal 7.28 26 .000 0.895 (4.673, 8.352)
Unequal 6.98 17.57 .000 0.933 (4.548, 8.477)
 
    3.  Group A’s average score was 9.6667 of a total possible right of 11 with a standard deviation of 1.589. Group B scored on average 3.1538 out of 11 possible points. The mean difference between Group A and Group B is 6.5128 which is highly significant. The test for the equality of the means demonstrates that the two groups have equal population variance (Table 1).

    4.  The second set of posttests consisted of two tests with different formats. One variety was the same as the posttest of previous studies. In addition to this type, a multiple choice posttest which stressed adjacent relationships of anatomical structures, selected from a random list, was then administered. The results of these two posttests taken by 41 (forty-one) students, 21 (twenty-one) in Group A, and 20 (twenty) in Group B, are detailed in Tables Two and Three. Table Two presents the findings of the posttests which required answers according to guidelines indicating brain layers/parts.

     

    Table 2: Second Set of PSLM Studies: Written Identification Exam
Variable Number of Cases Mean SD SE of Mean
Group A 21 9.0952 2.587 0.564
Group B 20 5.4000 2.210 0.494

Levine's Test for Equality of Variance: F= 0.856 P= 0.360
t-test of equality of means
Variances t-value df 2-Tail Sig SE of Difference 95% CI of Diff
Equal 4.91 39 .000 0.753 (2.172, 5.219)
Unequal 4.93 38.56 .000 0.750 (2.177, 5.213)
 
      Table Three shows the results of the multiple-choice test.
     
Table 3: Second Set of PSLM Studies: Multiple Choice Exam

Variable Number of Cases Mean SD SE of Mean
Group A 21 9.4286 2.181 0.476
Group B 20 4.8000 1.704 0.381

Levine's Test for Equality of Variance: F= 0.524 P= 0.474
t-test of equality of means
Variances t-value df 2-Tail Sig SE of Difference 95% CI of Diff
Equal 7.55 39 .000 0.613 (3.388, 5.869)
Unequal 7.59 37.60 .000 .610 (3.394, 5.863)
 
      The statistical analyses of both posttest forms denote a significant difference of the mean score between the two groups. Group A consistently showed a higher mean score than group B.
    5.  The second study period for Group B resulted in a much higher score, subsequent to the utilization of the prescribed, sequenced, labeled image, compared to the findings where Group B studied from a randomly labeled duplicate image.

    6.  The second set of posttests for Group B was administered on the same day as the first set of posttests. The results of the second set of posttests for Group B, subsequent to the implementation of a prescribed, sequence labeled image for study are displayed in Table 4.

 
Table 4: Paired Difference of Written Identification Exams for Group B
(Comparative analysis of posttest 1 and posttest 2)
 
Variable
Number
of Pairs
Corr
2-tail
Sig
Mean
SD
SE of Mean
Posttest 1
19
0.157
0.522
5.3684
2.266
0.520
Posttest 2
9.8947
1.524
0.350
                        Paired Differences
Mean
SD
SE of Mean
 
t-value
df
2-tail Sig
4.5263
2.525
.579
7.81
18
.000
     95% CI (5.743, 3.309)
 
 
Table 5: Paired Difference of Multiple Choice Exams for Group B
(Comparative analysis of posttest 1 and posttest 2)
 
Variable
Number
of Pairs
Corr
2-tail
Sig
Mean
SD
SE of Mean
Posttest 1
19
-0.142
0.563
4.7895
1.751
0.402
Posttest 2
9.7895
1.084
0.249
                        Paired Differences
Mean
SD
SE of Mean
 
t-value
df
2-tail Sig
5.0000
2.186
.501
9.97
18
.000
     95% CI (6.054, 3.946)
 
7. Results of the participant questionnaire are as follows:
  A.  When students were asked to state how they felt about their performance on the Pretest compared to the final Posttests, the answers ranged from "Not good" on the Pretest to "Excellent" on their final Posttest.
      B.  When students were questioned if they could define and apply anatomical directional terms, 8 (eight) answered "No, or somewhat", while 60 (sixty) answered "Yes".

      C.  When the students were asked to form an opinion about which methods of labeling were preferred, 95 % selected the prescribed, sequenced labeling system.

Next: Conclusions Up: Title Page Previous: Test Protocol Index: Full Text Index Contents: Conference Page