ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
A preliminary comparison of bellringer performance across three visual modalities for the assessment of anatomy knowledge.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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.
- A preliminary comparison of bellringer performance across three visual modalities for the assessment of anatomy knowledge.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anatomy education is an inherently visual field, particularly in bellringer (BR) testing, which requires learners to identify anatomical structures on human-donated specimens. While the traditional use of these physical specimens in BR testing has long remained the standard, three-dimensional (3D) viewing in virtual reality platforms and two-dimensional (2D) images of specimens on paper have become common alternatives due to the ease and feasibility of use. Despite widespread use, there is a paucity of literature comparing the assessment validity of these modalities to physical specimens as the historic standard. Thus, this study sought to assess BR testing performance and question validity (using point biserial evaluation) across all three modalities. In total, 140 undergraduate students, enrolled in an Introductory Anatomy and Physiology course at the time of testing, participated in a BR examination with specimens presented in three visual formats: physical specimens, printed 2D images, and 3D reconstructions in virtual reality. When comparing all three modalities, no notable differences were found between question difficulty, point biserial values, presentation of cybersickness, visuospatial ability, or modality preference. Additionally, modality preference and student opinion did not significantly affect test scores, suggesting that these student attributes were unrelated to BR performance. The examinations had high reliability as measured by KR-20 values, supporting the applicability of our results to undergraduate anatomy BR testing. This study provides preliminary evidence supporting the utility and validity of both 2D images and 3D virtual reality as alternative modalities for BR testing within the undergraduate anatomy education setting.
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.