ArticleScientific reports2023
Evaluation of STEM students' spatial abilities based on a novel net cube imagination test.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Stress Induction in Daily Life Using the Salzburg Mobile Stress Induction (SMSI): Development and Ambulatory Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the level of spatial ability among STEM students. A universal multiple-choice test was prepared. The validity of the test and the effectiveness of its application were tested. The test is an extension of those currently in use. It contains tasks on spatial perception, spatial visualization, mental folding, rotation of spatial elements, and representation of spatial elements on a plane. The test consists of 16 tasks showing a cube with lines located on the walls. The student's task was to determine the development of the cube and mentally construct a cube based on the development. The results of the test determined the level of progress of the group (105 participants), and showed that a significant number of students have difficulties in perceiving and working with a three-dimensional object. On average 55% of the questions were answered correctly. For the group tested, reading a flat drawing and determining axonometry proved easier than other task. Students who attended technical high school or had design experience scored better. During the course, measures to improve teaching were introduced. Spatial model work was strengthened and initial tasks were adjusted according to the level of the group. Emphasis on teamwork and consultation was introduced for those with the lowest scores. The applied modifications in classroom management had a good effect. The average of the final grade was B. The test is a useful tool for academics and students to study spatial ability and improve teaching activities for STEM students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.