ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Exploring perceptions of alternative assessment and grading in graduate anatomy education.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online anatomical images are an effective resource to improve knowledge acquisition and practical exam performance in gross anatomy.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Promoting self-regulated learning: using online question bank testing system to improve the efficiency of regular quizzes.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Medical students' examinations during the pandemic: Performance and perceptions of anatomy teaching and learning before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Exploring perceptions of alternative assessment and grading in graduate anatomy education.Anatomical sciences education · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alternative assessment approaches, such as pass/fail and feedback-based designs, aim to reduce academic stress and foster deeper learning. Few studies have examined feedback-based evaluation in formative settings in medical education, but none among graduate anatomy students. This exploratory study investigated the impact of feedback-based versus quiz-based assessments on graduate students' academic stress, motivation, and perceived learning quality in an anatomy course. Nine students were interviewed to discern perceptions of the impact of the different assessment types. Four instructors were interviewed to establish the philosophies behind their chosen assessment style, and their responses were compared to the perceptions of their students. Inductive thematic analyses of student interviews yielded multiple themes regarding considerations for the influence of assessment on academic-related anxiety and motivation: (1) communicating clear goals and expectations, (2) instructor approachability and individualized assessment, and (3) alignment between perceived effort and outcomes. Faculty interviewees demonstrated intentions to (1) promote non-technical skills, (2) provide authentic experiences, and (3) emphasize individualized assessment. However, there was some misalignment between instructors' goals and students' experiences, exacerbating students' stress and reducing their motivation. Feedback-based assessments were preferred for their perceived individualized nature and facilitation of deeper learning. Findings indicated that implementing feedback-based approaches, while ensuring constructive alignment, could reduce stress for graduate anatomy students. Furthermore, clear communication and instructor approachability can cultivate stronger teaching presence, which may enhance motivation, engagement, and the quality of learning outcomes. Implementing formative feedback-based assessments may, therefore, be an effective strategy to reduce stress and improve learning experiences for graduate-level anatomy 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.