Board #322 - Technology Innovation Development and Preliminary Validation of a Novel Ventriculostomy Simulator (Submission #8635)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction A team of biomedical engineers, neurosurgeons, and a medical educator, created and evaluated preliminary validity evidence of a high-fidelity simulator used to train ventriculostomy skills. Description A scale reproduction of an adult skull and relevant anatomy was created. Twelve neurosurgery residents, one fellow, and five attendings (n=17) from three academic medical centers performed the simulated creation of a ventricolostomy. Participants rated the simulator using a 37-item survey across five domains. Quality of the simulator was scored from “Not at all realistic” (1) to “Highly realistic” (4). Self-reported ability to perform relevant tasks was rated from “Too difficult to perform (0) to “Too easy to perform” (4). Validity evidence relevant to test content was evaluated using a Rasch model, while evidence relevant to internal structure (inter-item reliability, and inter-rater agreement) was evaluated using traditional methods. Conclusion Analyses indicated attendings had statistically higher ratings (M=3.4/4.0) than fellows (M=3.3), and residents (M=3.0), p=.02. Domain means were 3.9 (Value), 3.5 (Physical attributes), 3.4 (Realism of experience), 3.3 (Relevance), and 2.9 (Ability). Inter-item consistency across domains were estimated to be moderate-high (.65, .92), and inter-rater agreement regarding simulator characteristics was high [ICC(2,k)= .90]. Rating differences were found across institutions, p=.001, and are reviewed. The observed global rating (2.5) indicated the simulator can be considered for teaching ventriculostomies, but could be improved slightly. Ratings indicated the simulator was valuable as a learning tool, but could be improved with minor modifications. The most commonly-suggested improvement was the addition of ears as an added anatomical landmark. References 1. Haji FA, Dubrowski A, Drake J, de Ribaupierre S. Needs assessment for simulation training in neuroendoscopy: a Canadian national survey. J Neurosurg. 2013 Feb;118(2):250-7. doi: 10.3171/2012.10.JNS12767. Epub 2012 Dec 7 2. Schirmer CM, Elder JB, Roitberg B, Lobel DA. Virtual reality-based simulation training for ventriculostomy: an evidence-based approach. Neurosurgery. 2013 Oct;73 Suppl 1:66-73. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000074. 3. Choudhury N, Gélinas-Phaneuf N, Delorme S, Del Maestro R. Fundamentals of neurosurgery: virtual reality tasks for training and evaluation of technical skills. World Neurosurg. 2013 Nov;80(5):e9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.08.022. Epub 2012 Nov 23. 4. Korndorffer JR Jr, Kasten SJ, Downing SM. A call for the utilization of consensus standards in the surgical education literature. Am J Surg. 2010 Jan;199(1):99-104. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.018 5. Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: A systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med. 2013 Jun;88(6):872-83. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828ffdcf. 6. Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R, Brydges R. What counts as validity evidence? Examples and prevalence in a systematic review of simulation-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 May;19(2):233-50. doi: 10.1007/s10459-013-9458-4. Epub 2013 May 2. 7. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 1999, American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education: American Educational Research. 8. Rasch G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by BD Wright. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 9. Hamilton JM, et al., Toward effective pediatric minimally invasive surgical simulation. J Pediatr Surg, 2011. 46(1): p. 138-44. Disclosures None
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 | 0,016 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,053 | 0,028 |
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 ».