Mixed-methods study reveals improved anatomy performance with image-based questions on large displays in medical students, indicating platform display size influences visual learning.
Background: Assessment in anatomy education requires focus on visual understanding and practical medical applications. The evaluation of essential clinical reasoning abilities through visualization and higher-order cognitive and visual-spatial skills remains unaddressed by traditional text-based MCQs. Image-Based MCQ (IB-MCQs) is more authentic evaluation approach which is aligned with competency-based assessment. The present study evaluated the feasibility, perception and effectiveness of IB-MCQs as a formative assessment tool for Phase-I MBBS students in Anatomy through different platforms. Methodology: The study was conducted after ethical approval and used a mixed-methods approach. The assessment included 250 students who completed traditional MCQs and IB-MCQs through different platforms which included large screens and smart TVs and Google Forms, LMS. Statistical analysis used: The research used quantitative methods to analyze performance results while students and faculty members provided qualitative feedback about feasibility, usability and educational value. Results: Students achieved better results in IB-MCQs when using large-screen and Smart-TV platforms according to statistical analysis ( p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.8–1.1) which suggests better visualization abilities and conceptual knowledge. The performance of students decreased when they used mobile devices because of technical issues with the interface. The majority of students (87%) preferred IB-MCQs as assessment method because they found it more engaging and helpful for spatial learning. Conclusions: IB-MCQs enables students to learn visually while thinking critically develop application skills and analytical thinking abilities however, their effectiveness may be influenced by the testing platform, technical infrastructure, and logistics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: