A Comparison of Global Rating Scale and Checklist Scores in the Validation of an Evaluation Tool to Assess Performance in the Resuscitation of Critically Ill Patients During Simulated Emergencies (Abbreviated as “CRM Simulator Study IB”)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Crisis resource management (CRM) skills are a set of nonmedical skills required to manage medical emergencies. There is currently no gold standard for evaluation of CRM performance. A prior study examined the use of a global rating scale (GRS) to evaluate CRM performance. This current study compared the use of a GRS and a checklist as formal rating instruments to evaluate CRM performance during simulated emergencies. METHODS: First-year and third-year residents participated in two simulator scenarios each. Three raters then evaluated resident performance in CRM using edited video recordings using both a GRS and a checklist. The Ottawa GRS provides a seven-point anchored ordinal scale for performance in five categories of CRM, and an overall performance score. The Ottawa CRM checklist provides 12 items in the five categories of CRM, with a maximum cumulative score of 30 points. Construct validity was measured on the basis of content validity, response process, internal structure, and response to other variables. T-test analysis of Ottawa GRS scores was conducted to examine response to the variable of level of training. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores were used to measure inter-rater reliability for both scenarios. RESULTS: Thirty-two first-year and 28 third-year residents participated in the study. Third-year residents produced higher mean scores for overall CRM performance than first-year residents (P < 0.05), and in all individual categories within the Ottawa GRS (P < 0.05) and the Ottawa CRM checklist (P < 0.05). This difference was noted for both scenarios and for each individual rater (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in resident scores was observed between scenarios for both instruments. ICC scores of 0.59 and 0.61 were obtained for Scenarios 1 and 2 with the Ottawa GRS, whereas ICC scores of 0.63 and 0.55 were obtained with the Ottawa CRM checklist. Users indicated a strong preference for the Ottawa GRS given ease of scoring, presence of an overall score, and the potential for formative evaluation. CONCLUSION: Construct validity seems to be present when using both the Ottawa GRS and CRM checklist to evaluate CRM performance during simulated emergencies. Data also indicate the presence of moderate inter-rater reliability when using both the Ottawa GRS and CRM checklist.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle