Support for external validity of radiological anatomy tests using volumetric images.

Autor:	Ravesloot CJ; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: C.J.Ravesloot@umcutrecht.nl., van der Gijp A; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands., van der Schaaf MF; Department of Education, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Huige JC; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Vincken KL; Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Mol CP; Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Bleys RL; Department of Anatomy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., ten Cate OT; Center for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., van Schaik JP; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Academic radiology [Acad Radiol] 2015 May; Vol. 22 (5), pp. 640-5. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Feb 13.
DOI:	10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.013
Abstrakt:	Rationale and Objectives: Radiology practice has become increasingly based on volumetric images (VIs), but tests in medical education still mainly involve two-dimensional (2D) images. We created a novel, digital, VI test and hypothesized that scores on this test would better reflect radiological anatomy skills than scores on a traditional 2D image test. To evaluate external validity we correlated VI and 2D image test scores with anatomy cadaver-based test scores. Materials and Methods: In 2012, 246 medical students completed one of two comparable versions (A and B) of a digital radiology test, each containing 20 2D image and 20 VI questions. Thirty-three of these participants also took a human cadaver anatomy test. Mean scores and reliabilities of the 2D image and VI subtests were compared and correlated with human cadaver anatomy test scores. Participants received a questionnaire about perceived representativeness and difficulty of the radiology test. Results: Human cadaver test scores were not correlated with 2D image scores, but significantly correlated with VI scores (r = 0.44, P < .05). Cronbach's α reliability was 0.49 (A) and 0.65 (B) for the 2D image subtests and 0.65 (A) and 0.71 (B) for VI subtests. Mean VI scores (74.4%, standard deviation 2.9) were significantly lower than 2D image scores (83.8%, standard deviation 2.4) in version A (P < .001). VI questions were considered more representative of clinical practice and education than 2D image questions and less difficult (both P < .001). Conclusions: VI tests show higher reliability, a significant correlation with human cadaver test scores, and are considered more representative for clinical practice than tests with 2D images. (Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu