Table 3

Evaluation of the course parts arthroscopy and sonography after 3 weeks
Evaluation (Likert-Scale, LS, 1–5)# after course end Arthroscopy Ultrasound p
Number of evaluation (n) 201
The lecturer was competent 1.3 (0.7) 1.7 (0.9) < 0.001
The lecture was fun 1.5 (0.8) 1.5 (0.7) 0.816
I have learned alot 1.9 (1.0) 1.9 (0.9) 0.552
Theory and practice were well combined 1.6 (0.9) 1.9 (0.9) 0.001
The size of the group was optimal 2.3 (1.2) 2.3 (1.3) 0.631
The interaction between the group and the lecturer was good 1.6 (0.8) 1.6 (0.8) 0.691
Multidimensional augmentation in anatomical education makes sense 1.7 (0.9) 1.8 (0.9) 0.315
Structures were difficult to identify 3.2 (1.2) 2.6 (1.2) < 0.001
Many of my questions stayed unanswered 3.9 (0.9) 3.6 (1.0) 0.004
I would need more lectures for deepening 2.1 (1.1) 1.8 (1.1 < 0.001
Generally the PAL concept is a good teaching method 1.8 (1.0) 1.8 (1.0) 0.991
Only a medical expert can teach these contents 3.2 (1.3) 3.6 (1.1) < 0.001
Generally the contents were too comprehensive 4.0 (0.9) 3.7 (1.0) 0.003
I could improve my anatomical knowledge 1.9 (1.0) 2.3 (1.1) 0.002
The durability of my anatomical knowledge is raised 1.7 (0.9) 1.7 (0.9) 0.624
My spatial imagination was improved 1.6 (0.9) 2.0 (1.1) < 0.001
I was better prepared for the practical exam (OSCE) 2.7 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 0.117
This lecture should later be introduced in the study 3.6 (1.3) 3.6 (1.3) 0.202
ASK and MSUS awaked my interest in surgery 2.4 (1.1) 2.4 (1.0) 0.899

# Likert-Scale (LS): 1 complete approval – 5 entire rejection.

PAL: peer-assisted learning.

ASK: arthroscopy.

MSUS: musculoskeletal ultrasound.

Questions of the questionnaire were translated from German.

All scores are quoted as arithmetic average (standard deviation).

Knobe et al.

Knobe et al. BMC Medical Education 2012 12:85   doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-85

Open Data