Well, Mike, this study seems to have pushed some of your "buttons." No one ever said that this study was the final word on the matter, and the methodological questions you raise are valid, but I hardly think they undermine continued serious investigation of the question. To my mind, the value of the exercise was to instruct students on the careful observation and interpretation of complexly structured stimuli. One might have used other complexly structured stimuli, but I suspect that it is the very multivalence of artworks that makes them excellent for learning to find structures and relationships that are not immediately obvious (as one will need to find them in complex living patients later on).
Chris Green York U. Toronto ============ Mike Palij wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:50:04 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: > >> Scientists often deride fine arts education as being "fluffy" (or >> worse). Harvard medical school has found out differently. From >> today's Inside Higher Ed: >> >> "At a time when medical schools worry about their students' declining >> powers of observation, art may turn things around. Researchers at >> Brigham and Women's Hospital conducted an experiment in which Harvard >> Medical Students received instruction at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts >> on how to carefully examine and discuss fine arts, using works by >> Picasso, Monet and others. The results, >> > <http://www.brighamandwomens.org/Pressreleases/PressRelease.aspx?PageID=385> > >> which appear in the new issue of the Journal of General Internal >> Medicine, show that these students experienced significant improvements >> in their observations of patients." >> > > Just a few points; > > (1) The article in question is the following: > > Sheila Naghshineh, Janet P. Hafler, Alexa R. Miller, Maria A. Blanco, > Stuart R. Lipsitz, Rachel P. Dubroff, Shahram Khoshbin and Joel T. Katz > (2008). Formal Art Observation Training Improves Medical Students' > Visual Diagnostic Skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), > 991-997. > > (2) To whom are these results generalizable? Everyone? Undergraduates? > Medical students at Ivy League medical schoola? Caucasian medical students > at Ivy League medical schools (from Table 1: "Art Intervention Group" had > 15 White students out of a total of 24 or 62% while the "Control Group" had > 15 White students out of a total of 34 or 44%). I often wonder about > studies > that use participants from elite institutions (like Harvard medical school) > because it is unclear to whom the results apply. > > (3) It might be worthwhile to review the limitations of the study as > specified by the authors: > > |This study has several limitations. First, the decision to > |establish an adequately sized control group came at the cost of > |true randomization. Randomized and recruited controls did > |not differ demographically or on the pre-course visual skills > |examination; however, unmeasured variables may confound > |the relationship between course participation and improved > |scores on the visual skills examination. In addition, we did not > |adjust alpha for multiple comparisons, so some of the > |statistically significant differences between the student groups > |may have occurred by chance alone. Second, students were > |evaluated immediately after the course. Long-term follow-up > |was not done, precluding the assessment of sustained learning. > |Third, the combined effect of fine art observation and > |didactics was studied, limiting our ability to distinguish the > |relative contributions of each. Comparison of this course to an > |alternative physical examination course was not performed. > |Fourth, clinical outcomes were not measured, so there is no > |direct evidence that these skills can be transferred into > |improved patient care. Finally, the study was located at one > |medical school, and although other schools have successfully > |implemented shorter courses with similar design elements, the > |ability to generalize these findings to other schools is unknown. > |This course may be difficult to replicate at medical > |schools that do not have art museums or art educators > |available to them. > (Naghshineh et al 2008, page 995) > > (4) One confusing thing about the presentation of their results is > that their tables have N=24 for the Art Intervention Group and > N=34 for the Control Group but apparently not all subjects > completed the pre and post course visual skill examination (p993). > The Art Intervention Group lost 4 subjects (final N=20; 83% > completion rate) and the Control Group lost 2 subjects (final > N=32; 94% completion rate which was not significantly different > from the intervention group). Perhaps I missed something. > > Other readers might find other aspects about the report unclear > (e.g., what is a nonparametric t-test?) and may reach conclusions > different from those of the authors and press releases. Or not. > > Oh, I do like art, low and high, but I think that much more > research has to be done before it is clear what effect, if any, > there is of studying art on other skill areas. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
