Claims

Perceived VDT utility did not always correspond to measurable academic advantage

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In some studies, students reported high satisfaction with VDTs even when post-test score differences did not reach statistical significance (e.g., p = 0.0979 in Anand et al.). → Telecan Teodora 2025

Evidence

Telecan Teodora 2025

Telecan Teodora, Capraș Roxana-Denisa, Filip Gabriela Adriana, Bonea Maria, Crivii Carmen-Bianca. (2025). Dissection in the 21st century: virtual tables versus traditional methods and their influence on medical students' perception – a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07946-6

q2 · i? · review · r2

In Anand et al.'s 3-hour neuroanatomy session study, the Anatomage group reported high satisfaction, but "the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0979)", suggesting perceived utility did not directly correspond to a measurable academic advantage.

"while their post-test scores were slightly higher than those in the cadaver group (12.5 versus 11.73), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0979)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.