4.3 Article

The relationship between premedical coursework in gross anatomy and histology and medical school performance in gross anatomy and histology

Journal

CLINICAL ANATOMY
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 160-164

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ca.1114

Keywords

undergraduate coursework; preclinical achievement; grades

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many premedical students enroll in courses whose content will be encountered again during their medical education. Presumably, students believe this practice will lead to improved academic performance in corresponding medical school courses. Therefore, this study was undertaken to determine whether a premedical gross anatomy and/or histology course resulted in increased performance in corresponding medical school courses. A second aim of the study was to examine whether the type of premedical gross anatomy and/or histology course differentially affected medical school performance. A survey that assessed premedical gross anatomy and histology coursework was administered to 440 first-year medical students. The results from this survey showed that students with premedical gross anatomy (n = 236) and/or histology (n = 109) earned significantly more points in the corresponding medical school course than students without the premedical coursework (P < 0.05). Analysis of premedical course types revealed that students who took a gross anatomy course with prosected specimens (n = 35) earned significantly more points that those students without premedical gross anatomy coursework (P < 0.05). The results from this study suggest: 1) premedical gross anatomy and/or histology coursework improves academic performance in corresponding medical school courses, and 2) a premedical gross anatomy course with prosected specimens, a specific type of undergraduate course, significantly improves academic performance in medical gross anatomy. Clin. Anat. 15:160-164, 2002. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available