Published: 2017-12-23

Designing an effective student evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaire for cadaveric dissection

Joydeep D. Chaudhuri, B. Venugopal Rao


Recent changes in curriculum have seen a curtailment in the time devoted to the teaching of gross anatomy, one of the most integral components of medical education. This has resulted in the reduction, and in some cases the elimination of cadaveric dissection, most significantly due to the huge amount of resources involved in conducting a cadaveric dissection program. Nevertheless, cadaveric dissection still comprises a significant part of the time devoted to the teaching of gross anatomy. Hence it is of paramount importance that maximum benefit be derived from cadaveric dissections since it offers unique advantages, most significant being the appreciation of the three-dimensional concepts of body organization. The key part of effective anatomy teaching using cadaveric dissection is having the best instructors for this task. While student evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaires have been used to evaluate instructor proficiency in lecture classes, there is no SET questionnaire that has been specifically designed for the assessment of instructors involved in cadaveric dissection. The aim of this article is to design a questionnaire specifically for the evaluation of the competency of instructors involved in cadaveric dissection, and reinforce the arguments for the continued use of cadaveric dissection in the teaching of anatomy. 


Cadaveric dissection, Student evaluation of teaching

Full Text:



Bradley A, Khan K, Madurska M, Riddell A, Saldanha J. From cadavers to clinical practice: the anatomy of lifelong learning. Scott Med J. 2015;60:161-3.

Roberts G. Time to demonstrate how we impact student learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85:27-30.

Lachman N, Pawlina W. Integrating professionalism in early medical education: the theory and application of reflective practice in the anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat. 2006;19:456-60.

Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat. 2016;208: 151-7.

Geldenhuys EM, Burger EH, van Helden PD, Mole CG, Kotzé SH. Optimizing the use of cadavers by integrating pathology during anatomy dissection. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:575-82.

Bergman EM. Discussing dissection in anatomy education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:211-3.

Waterson SW, Stewart IJ. Survey of clinician’s attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat. 2005;18:380-4.

Cahill DR, Leonard RJ, Marks SC. Standards in health care and medical education. Clin Anat. 2000;13:150-4.

Pinchi V, Varvara G, Pradella F, Focardi M, Donati MD, Norelli G. Analysis of professional malpractice claims in implant dentistry in Italy from insurance company technical reports. 2006 to 2010. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:1177-84.

Drake RL, Lowrie DJ, Prewitt CM. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec. 2002;269:118-22.

Hortsch M, Mangrulkar RS. When students struggle with gross anatomy and histology: A strategy for monitoring, reviewing, and promoting student academic success in an integrated preclinical medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:478-83.

Heisler CA. Importance of adequate gross anatomy education: the impact of a structured pelvic anatomy course during gynecology fellowship. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:302-4.

Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat. 2006;19:132-41.

Tseng WT, Lin YP. "Detached concern" of medical students in a cadaver dissection course: A phenomenological study. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:265-71.

Day CS, Ahn CS. Commentary: the importance of musculoskeletal medicine and anatomy in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85:401-12.

Shackleton NL, Campbell T. Are teachers' judgements of pupils' ability influenced by body shape? Int J Obes (Lond). 2014;38:520-4.

Donnelly MB, Woolliscroft JO. Evaluation of clinical instructors by third-year medical students. Acad Med. 1989;64:159-64.

Koens F, Custers EJ, Cate OT Clinical and basic science teachers' opinions about the required depth of biomedical knowledge for medical students. Med Teach. 2006;28:234-8.

Kwon K, Kim EM, Sheridan SM. A contextual approach to social skills assessment in the peer group: who is the best judge? Sch Psychol. 2012;Q 27:121-33.

Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: Correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students’ outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:45-52.

Kuwaiti AA. Health Science students' evaluation of courses and Instructors: the effect of response rate and class size interaction. Int J Health Sci. 2015;9: 51-60.

Dissabandara LO, Nirthanan SN, Khoo TK, Tedman R. Role of cadaveric dissections in modern medical curricula: a study on student perceptions. Anat Cell Biol. 2015;48:205-12.