Beta Test Results of a New System Assessing Competence in Laparoscopic Surgery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is currently a need for objective measures of surgical competence. Such measures should assess knowledge, judgment, and manual skills. The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program was developed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons to meet these criteria. The FLS assessment includes a multiple-choice cognitive test and a manual skills test. We present the results of validation studies of this novel assessment tool. STUDY DESIGN: Beta testing of the FLS examination was undertaken at 7 sites by 70 surgeons representing 4 levels of experience and training. Surgeons provided information about their prior experience and indicated a self-assessment of their laparoscopic competence. Results were assessed by ANOVA followed by orthogonal contrasts. RESULTS: Cognitive performance by training level: There was no difference between fellows and staff in percentage of questions answered correctly, but there was a discrepancy between junior and senior residents and between residents and senior surgeons (p < 0.01). Cognitive performance by laparoscopic experience quartiles: There were notable contrasts between the first and second quartiles of experience (p < 0.02) and between the third and fourth quartiles (p < 0.01). No marked difference was found between the second and third quartiles. Cognitive performance compared with self-assessment: Test results were substantially different (p < 0.01) between test-takers who assessed themselves as "better than average" and those who assessed themselves as "average" or "below average." Manual skills performance by training level: The major difference was found between junior residents versus senior residents, fellows or staff (p < 0.01). Manual skills performance by laparoscopic experience level: Differences were primarily seen between the first two quartiles and the last two quartiles of laparoscopic experience (p < 0.001). Manual skills performance compared with self-assessment: Those who assessed themselves as "above average" in laparoscopic skill performed markedly better than those indicating they had "average" or "below average" skill (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Beta test results for the FLS examination demonstrate satisfactory reliability, appropriate psychometric properties, and substantial initial validity. The FLS project is one of the first validated surgical education efforts to assess the competence of surgeons in a specific field.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».