Skip to main content

Table 2 Proportion agreement that training in anatomy and knowledge in anatomy was adequate for practice

From: Australian chiropractors’ perception of the clinical relevance of anatomical sciences and adequacy of teaching in chiropractic curricula

Anatomical sciences sub-discipline

Strongly disagree or disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree or strongly agree

Comparison across these responses

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

p value*

Training in

 Gross anatomy

0 (0)

1 (0.8)

6 (4.7)

121 (94.5)

< 0.001

 Histology

5 (3.9)

6 (4.7)

26 (20.3)

91 (71.1)

< 0.001

 Neuroanatomy

1 (0.8)

0 (0)

13 (10.2)

114 (89.1)

< 0.001

 Embryology

9 (7.1)

10 (7.9)

29 (22.8)

79 (62.2)

< 0.001

Knowledge in

 Gross anatomy

0 (0)

1 (0.8)

1 (0.8)

126 (98.4)

< 0.001

 Histology

9 (7.1)

7 (5.6)

55 (43.0)

55 (43.0)

< 0.001

 Neuroanatomy

11 (8.7)

13 (10.2)

38 (29.9)

65 (51.2)

< 0.001

 Embryology

11 (8.7)

13 (10.2)

38 (29.9)

65 (51.2)

< 0.001

  1. *Chi-squared test used to test if proportions are the same across SD/D, Somewhat D, Somewhat A, A/SA responses