Sex differences favoring males in spatial abilities have been known by cognitive psychologists for more than half a century. Spatial abilities have been related to three-dimensional anatomy knowledge and the performance in technical skills. The issue of sex differences in spatial abilities has not been addressed formally in the medical field. The objective of this study was to test an a priori hypothesis of sex differences in spatial abilities in a group of medical graduates entering their residency programs over a five-year period. A cohort of 214 medical graduates entering their specialist residency training programs was enrolled in a prospective study. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Tests in two (MRTA) and three (MRTC) dimensions. Sex differences favoring males were identified in 131 (61.2%) female and 83 (38.8%) male medical graduates with the median (Q1, Q3) MRTA score [12 (8, 14) vs. 15 (12, 18), respectively; P < 0.0001] and MRTC score [7 (5, 9) vs. 9 (7, 12), respectively; P < 0.0001]. Sex differences in spatial abilities favoring males were demonstrated in the field of medical education, in a group of medical graduates entering their residency programs in a five-year experiment. Caution should be exerted in applying our group finding to individuals because a particular female may have higher spatial abilities and a particular male may have lower spatial abilities.

Spatial abilities have been related in previous studies to three-dimensional (3D) anatomy knowledge and the performance in technical skills. The objective of this study was to relate spatial abilities to residency programs with different levels of content of 3D anatomy knowledge and technical skills. The hypothesis was that the choice of residency program is related to spatial abilities. A cohort of 210 medical graduates was enrolled in a prospective study in a 5-year experiment. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test (MRT) in two (MRTA) and three (MRTC) dimensions. Medical graduates were enrolled in Family Medicine (n = 76, 36.2%), Internal Medicine (64, 30.5%), Surgery (52, 24.8%), and Anesthesia (18, 8.6%). The assumption was that the level of 3D anatomy knowledge and technical skills content was higher in Surgery and Anesthesia compared to Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. Mean MRTA score of 12.4 (±SD 4.6), 12.0 (±4.3), 14.1 (±4.3), and 14.6 (±4.0) was obtained in Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anesthesia, respectively (P = 0.0176). Similarly, mean MRTC score of 8.0 (±4.4), 7.5 (±3.6), 8.5 (±3.9), and 7.9 (±4.1) was obtained (P = 0.5647). Although there was a tendency for lower MRTA score in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine compared to Surgery and Anesthesia, no statistically significant main effect of residency, year, sex, or the interactions were observed for the MRTA and MRTC. Studied sample of medical graduates was not found to choose their residency programs based on their innate spatial abilities.

A concern on the level of anatomy knowledge reached after a problem-based learning curriculum has been documented in the literature. Spatial anatomy, arguably the highest level in anatomy knowledge, has been related to spatial abilities. Our first objective was to test the hypothesis that residents are interested in a course of applied anatomy after a problem-based learning curriculum. Our second objective was to test the hypothesis that the interest of residents is driven by innate higher spatial abilities. Fifty-nine residents were invited to take an elective applied anatomy course in a prospective study. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test in two (MRT A) and three (MRT C) dimensions. A need for a greater knowledge in anatomy was expressed by 25 residents after a problem-based learning curriculum. MRT A and C scores obtained by those choosing (n 5 25) and not choosing (n 5 34) applied anatomy was not different (P 5 0.46 and P 5 0.38, respectively). Percentage of residents in each residency program choosing applied anatomy was different [23 vs. 31 vs. 100 vs. 100% in Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anesthesia, respectively; P < 0.0001]. The interest of residents in applied anatomy was not driven by innate higher spatial abilities. Our applied anatomy course was chosen by many residents because of training needs rather than innate spatial abilities. Future research will need to assess the relationship of individual differences in spatial abilities to learning spatial anatomy. Anat Sci Ed 2: 107-112, 2009.

ObjectiveThe mental image of a three‐dimensional anatomical structure is a prerequisite to the performance in technical skills. The objective was to assess the relationship of spatial abilities to three‐dimensional synthesis of two‐dimensional views of structures using drawings.MethodsFourth‐year medical students (n = 49) were recruited in a prospective study. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test in two (MRTA) and three (MRTC) dimensions and the Surface Development Test (SDT). As part of a drawing course, participants had to build structures of increasing complexity from simple parts using two‐dimensional views of structures and then to draw isometric views of structures. The accuracy of the drawings was assessed as right or wrong. The maximum score was 24 for MRTA and MRTC, 60 for SDT and 25 for the drawings. The results were expressed as means ± standard deviation and the Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to compare the drawing score to MRTA, MRTC and SDT scores.ResultsThe drawing score (14.6 ± 3.7) was related to MRTA (13.5 ± 5.2), MRTC (9.7 ± 4.5) and SDT (43.4 ± 10.0) scores; with a correlation of 0.3728 (p = 0.0083), 0.4248 (p = 0.0023) and 0.5420 (p < 0.0001), respectively.ConclusionSpatial abilities were related to three‐dimensional synthesis of two‐dimensional views of structures using drawings.This study was supported by an internal grant from the Department of Surgery, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

ObjectiveSpatial abilities have been related to cross‐sections of anatomical structures. The objective was to assess the relationship of spatial abilities to positioning and assessing area of structures in cross‐sectional drawings.MethodsFourth‐year medical students (n = 49) were recruited in a prospective study. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test in two (MRTA) and three (MRTC) dimensions and the Surface Development Test (SDT). Participants had to draw by observation the four lateral sides of objects made of several structures. After the objects were removed from view, cross‐sections of the objects were drawn. Position and area of structures within drawn objects were compared to standard. Results were expressed as means ± standard deviation and Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship of positional and area errors of drawn structures to MRTA, MRTC and SDT scores.ResultsPositional error (9805 ± 6699 pixels) was inversely related to MRTA (13.5 ± 5.2), MRTC (9.7 ± 4.5) and SDT (43.4 ± 10.0) scores; with a correlation of − 0.3718 (p = 0.0085), − 0.4682 (p = 0.0007) and − 0.3461 (p = 0.0149), respectively. Similarly, area error (440416 ± 131870 pixels) was not related to MRTA, MRTC and SDT scores.ConclusionSpatial abilities were related to the position, but not to the area, of structures in cross‐sectional drawings of objects.This study was supported by an internal grant from the Department of Surgery, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.