ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
The Relationship Between Learning and Thinking Styles and the Performance of Female Pharmacy Students in an Anatomy Course.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: In professional health education, it is common to align teaching strategies with students' preferred learning and thinking styles. However, the evidence supporting this "meshing" approach is weak. To address this gap, this study aimed to investigate the learning and thinking styles of first-year female pharmacy students and compare them to their performance in an anatomy course. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated first-year female Doctor of Pharmacy students enrolled in an anatomy course over two consecutive academic years. Two validated inventory tools were used to assess students' learning and thinking styles: the Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic Learning Styles Inventory (VARK) and the Thinking Style Indicator (TSI). The students' final course grades were compared with their thinking and learning styles. Results: 259 students (98% of both cohorts) provided complete data on both instruments. The kinesthetic (58%) and concrete-sequential learners (32%) had the highest grades among the studied population. Neither learning style (P = 0.959) nor thinking style (P = 0.918) predicted the performance of students in the anatomy course. On the other hand, students with multimodal learning and thinking styles tended to have better scores than those who were unimodal. Conclusion: The results of the study demonstrate that learning and thinking styles do not have a significant role in the performance of pharmacy students in an anatomy course, which led us to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, anatomy educators should make full use of multiple active blended learning modalities available to accommodate the full range of individualized learning preferences.
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.