Are 3D printed models acceptable in assessment?

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printed models are increasingly used in undergraduate anatomy teaching. However, their role and value in anatomy assessment remains under consideration. The aim of this study was to evaluate student and educator perspectives on acceptability of using novel 3D printed heart models for assessment. Methods:We used printed 3D models of the heart for first-year medical students, in small group teaching, formative assessment and revision at home. We adopted a mixed methods approach involving questionnaires, then focus groups to collect student and educator views. We used QSR Nvivo to manage thematic analysis of responses, carried out by student and educators, respectively.Findings: Overall, students 89% (n = 75/84) and educators 91% (n = 10/11) found the assessment acceptable. Thematic analysis of focus groups (n = 4 students, n = 5 educators) identified five key perceptions shared across student and educator groups: 3D models are the future, realism is valued, models appear feasible, consistent and provide a potential for a range of applications in assessment.Discussion: There was agreement between educators and students that the use of 3D heart models was acceptable. Key recognised benefits include accessibility and consistency across settings, made more relevant in the current COVID-19 pandemic.We recommend integration of 3D models into teaching and assessment for educational alignment and careful selection of anatomy to model. Further research is required to explore the use of models in summative assessments. | BACKGROUNDThree-dimensional (3D) printed models are gaining momentum in undergraduate anatomy education. 1 They have been successfully incorporated into anatomy teaching, with the option of allowing students to take the models home. 2 Proponents of the use of 3D model versus preserved anatomical specimens in teaching have cited key advantages, including lack of legal regulations, control over availability and integration into multimodal teaching for improved educational outcomes. 2,3 These advantages extend further to their use in anatomy assessment. As there are no legal restrictions on transport and use, this facilitates assessments taking place in a variety of hospital, university or home settings. The ease of access to readily available assessment tools is made more relevant in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, 3D models improve assessment reliability as all students are assessed with the identical model. Candidates can directly handle and annotate the model as part of the assessment.

3D printing as a pedagogical tool for teaching normal human anatomy: a systematic review

“…The main drawbacks were related to design: stiffness [ 80 ], consistency [ 28 , 62 ], lack of detail or transparency [ 28 , 30 , 34 , 45 , 48 , 62 , 64 , 81 ], overly bright colours [ 45 ], and fragility [ 71 ]. Other drawbacks were the loss of information [ 30 , 76 ], long time needed for image segmentation [ 36 , 52 , 57 , 58 , 74 ], printing time [ 57 , 63 , 66 , 67 ], lack of anatomical variability [ 25 ] and the high cost [ 48 ].…”

“…Some authors suggested that advanced printing technologies such as SLS should be used whenever possible to improve the 3DPAM’s accuracy [ 38 ]. The help of a professional was required to make the 3DPAM; the most requested professionals were an engineer [ 72 ], radiologist, [ 75 ] graphic designer, [ 43 ] and anatomist [ 25 , 28 , 51 , 57 , 76 , 77 ].…”

“…3DPAMs were effective as pedagogical tools in terms of achievement, [ 16 , 35 , 39 , 52 , 57 , 63 , 69 , 79 ] long-term knowledge retention [ 32 ] and student satisfaction [ 25 , 45 , 46 , 52 , 57 , 63 , 66 , 69 , 84 ]. Expert panels have also been found these models useful [ 37 , 42 , 49 , 81 , 82 ] and two studies highlighted teacher satisfaction with 3DPAMs [ 25 , 63 ]. Among all resources, Backhouse and colleagues judged 3D printing to be the best alternative to conventional anatomical models [ 49 ].…”

“…One study considered the colours of the plastic materials too bright, [ 45 ] another that the model was too fragile, [ 71 ] and two others pointed out the lack of anatomical variability when a single model was designed [ 25 , 45 ]. Seven studies concluded that the anatomical detail was insufficient in their 3DPAM [ 28 , 34 , 45 , 48 , 62 , 63 , 81 ].…”

Full-sized realistic 3D printed models of liver and tumour anatomy: a useful tool for the clinical medicine education of beginning trainees

“…The application of 3DP models bridges the gap between two-dimensional (2D) imaging and realistic anatomy, as it accurately reproduces anatomical structures and pathologies, thereby providing more tangible information than conventional imaging data [ 19 ]. 3DP models also appear to be a significantly more useful and cost-effective technique than traditional cadaveric models in medical education [ 20 ], such as those used in undergraduate dentistry training [ 4 ], urology residents [ 21 ], first-year medical students [ 22 ], craniofacial traumas [ 23 ], oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery [ 24 ]. However, recent SBME changes regarding 3DP models have focused only on undergraduate medical education [ 25 ].…”