• D L Myers, L A Arya, A Verma, D L Polseno, and E M Buchanan.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. dmyers@wihri.org
• Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb 1; 97 (2): 321-4.

ObjectiveTo determine whether clay modeling with lecture is more effective than lecture alone in teaching female pelvic anatomy.MethodsA pretest preceded a lecture on female pelvic anatomy in the following five groups of obstetrics and gynecology residents: postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island (RI), PGY-1 residents at University of Connecticut (CT), and PGY-2, -3, and -4 residents at RI. The study group (PGY-1 RI) also participated in a clay modeling session. Both groups of PGY-1 residents were tested immediately (posttest 1) and then 8 weeks later (posttest 2). The PGY-2, -3, and -4 residents had only posttest 2. Data were analyzed with parametric, nonparametric, and repeated measures analyses.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the mean pretest scores of the five groups. The study group showed significant improvement in mean scores at posttest 1 (29.7 +/- 0.9, P <.001) and at posttest 2 (24.1 +/- 4.6, P =.03) compared with the mean pretest score (17.4 +/- 3.7). The CT residents demonstrated significant improvement in mean scores at posttest 1 (25.2 +/- 4.4, P =.02) but not at posttest 2 (19 +/- 3.7, P =.2) compared with their mean pretest score (15.2 +/- 2.9). There was no significant improvement in the mean scores at posttest 2 for PGY-2, -3, and -4 resident groups compared with their pretest scores.ConclusionClay modeling with lecture was more effective than lecture alone for teaching pelvic anatomy.

15 keywords...

hide…