Number
126
Name
Evaluating Outcomes of a Competency-Based, Collaborate Approach to Assessing Medical Neuroanatomy
Date & Time
Sunday, June 7, 2026, 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
Location Name
Oglethorpe Ballroom
Speakers
Authors
Andrew Thompson, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Madeline Kelly, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Presentation Topic(s)
Assessment
Description
PURPOSE
Medical neuroanatomy is often assessed individually through computer-based
written exams and cadaveric practical exams. Although group testing has been
used in other areas of medical education, its application to practical exams,
especially in neuroanatomy, remains limited. This study describes a novel,
competency-based approach in which student teams collaboratively tag exam
structures and work with each other and faculty to resolve misconceptions in
real time. The evaluation focused on (1) whether students felt this format
better supported learning and (2) whether the experience influenced
conceptual neuroanatomy knowledge.
METHODS
Data were collected from one cohort (2025) of medical students enrolled in
an MS1 Brain, Mind, and Behavior course. Students participated in a new
neuroanatomy practical exam format where groups at each anatomy table tagged
predetermined structures on brain specimens and answered higher-order
questions related to those structures posed by faculty facilitators. After
addressing knowledge gaps, students rotated to adjacent tables and completed
alternate versions of the exam created by their peers. The approach was
evaluated using a custom survey and by comparing this cohort’s performance on
individually administered written neuroanatomy exams with historical data.
RESULTS
Survey responses were obtained from 177 students (97% response rate). Most
students (93%) reported that the group-based format enhanced their learning
compared with traditional practical exams, and 94% agreed it improved their
awareness of knowledge gaps. Although 61% indicated they would have studied
more for a traditional exam, 97% reported that the group format reduced
preparation-related stress, and 85% felt all group members arrived prepared.
Comparison with historical written exam performance showed no significant
difference in individual neuroanatomy outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Group testing can be successfully integrated into neuroanatomy practical
exams, offering a less stressful assessment experience without compromising
individual learning outcomes.
Medical neuroanatomy is often assessed individually through computer-based
written exams and cadaveric practical exams. Although group testing has been
used in other areas of medical education, its application to practical exams,
especially in neuroanatomy, remains limited. This study describes a novel,
competency-based approach in which student teams collaboratively tag exam
structures and work with each other and faculty to resolve misconceptions in
real time. The evaluation focused on (1) whether students felt this format
better supported learning and (2) whether the experience influenced
conceptual neuroanatomy knowledge.
METHODS
Data were collected from one cohort (2025) of medical students enrolled in
an MS1 Brain, Mind, and Behavior course. Students participated in a new
neuroanatomy practical exam format where groups at each anatomy table tagged
predetermined structures on brain specimens and answered higher-order
questions related to those structures posed by faculty facilitators. After
addressing knowledge gaps, students rotated to adjacent tables and completed
alternate versions of the exam created by their peers. The approach was
evaluated using a custom survey and by comparing this cohort’s performance on
individually administered written neuroanatomy exams with historical data.
RESULTS
Survey responses were obtained from 177 students (97% response rate). Most
students (93%) reported that the group-based format enhanced their learning
compared with traditional practical exams, and 94% agreed it improved their
awareness of knowledge gaps. Although 61% indicated they would have studied
more for a traditional exam, 97% reported that the group format reduced
preparation-related stress, and 85% felt all group members arrived prepared.
Comparison with historical written exam performance showed no significant
difference in individual neuroanatomy outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Group testing can be successfully integrated into neuroanatomy practical
exams, offering a less stressful assessment experience without compromising
individual learning outcomes.