Relationship Between Student‐Naming of Cadavers and Their Performance and Experience in a First‐Year Medical Gross Anatomy Course and Dissection
Authors: Sherrill John , Meyer Edgar 
Published: April 2020

INTRODUCTIONPrevious work has shown that students that know more information about their donors, such as first names, tend to do better in gross anatomy courses (Talarico, 2013). Yet, there are little to no data of how student‐chosen names may affect student performance or experience.AIMAssess how student choice to name cadavers impacts performance and experience in a medical gross anatomy course.METHODSFirst‐year medical student volunteers (n=151) at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences were administered a survey inquiring about their dissection and course experiences as well as interactions with their cadavers including decisions about naming the cadaver. This study was deemed exempt by Institutional Review Board. For analysis the subjects were divided based on whether their group chose to give a name to their cadaver (“Naming‐Students” or “Non‐Naming Students”) or whether their group chose to give a name to their cadaver and if the individual agreed with the decision.RESULTSStudents in groups who gave names to their cadavers (n=105), compared to students who did not give names, “Non‐Naming Students” (n=45), scored slightly lower on practical exams (86.6% vs 88.8%), written exams (86.1% vs 88.4%), and final grade (89.0% vs 90.7%). Within groups that named their cadaver, students that agreed with the decision tended to outperform those that disagreed in each of the three exam measures. Naming‐Students were more likely to report positive experiences as a percentage of all experience responses (77.1% vs 62.8%). Naming‐Students were more likely to report thinking about their cadaver’s life “often” or “very often” (49.5% vs 40.0%). Naming‐Students were more likely to report interest in meeting their cadaver’s family if offered (26.7% vs 9.9%).DISCUSSIONThese results indicate that students in groups that bestow a name upon their cadavers may be less able to separate the job at hand and humanity before them. These Naming‐Students spend more of their time thinking about who their cadavers were, and our results suggest this is related to small decreases in performance measures. However, they are more likely to report positive experiences compared to the Non‐Naming‐Students. It seems the connection that naming creates is a positive influence on experience. While both gross anatomy and the medical profession require an ability to separate humanity from work, the medical students will eventually be physicians where their compassion will also play an important role in their work. The decision to name the cadavers shows a relationship with measures of compassions such as willingness to meet family members and time spent thinking about the human being that the cadaver once was. These results show relationships between students’ choices to name a cadaver, but further work is needed to strengthen and clarify the significance of the relationships.
Naming Students vs Non‐Naming Student Average Exam Scores

Average Practical Grade%

Average Written Exam%

Average Final Grade%

Course Pass%

Naming Studnets Total (n=105)

86.6

86.1

89.0

99.1

Student Agreed (n=91)

86.8

86.4

89.2

100.0

Student Disagreed (n=12)

84.0

82.6

86.4

91.7

Non‐Naming Students Total (n=45)

88.8

88.4

90.7

100.0

Student Agreed (n=37)

89.2

88.8

91.0

100.0

Student Disagreed (n=6)

86.2

84.3

87.8

100.0