Face and Content Validity of a Probe Tube Placement Training Simulator
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Probe tube placement is an important skill audiologists must learn to make real-ear measurements in an audiology clinic. With current evidence-based guidelines recommending insertion of the probe tube within 5 mm of the tympanic membrane (TM) for proper acoustical measurements, students must be well trained to ensure they are capable to perform this placement in clinical practice. This is not always the case as it has been found that real-ear measurements are not performed in a clinic as often as required. To address this, a simulator consisting of a 3D-printed ear model and an optical tracking system was developed to provide a training system for students to practice probe tube placement and to provide a method to evaluate competency before starting clinical practicum placements. Two simulators were developed, an adult model and a pediatric model. PURPOSE: To assess the face and content validity of the two probe tube placement simulators (adult and pediatric) and define barriers and facilitators to implementing this system into an educational setting. RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants followed the setup and operating instructions designed to guide them through each functionality of the simulator. A questionnaire was used to assess face and content validity, applicability to an educational setting, and to determine perceived barriers and facilitators to using the probe tube simulators for training purposes. Five additional probe tube placements with each simulator were performed in which distance-to-TM was recorded. STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve participants with significant probe tube placement experience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants rated each question in the questionnaire from 0% to 100% depending on their level of agreement. Averages and standard deviations (SDs) were compiled and presented for each section (face validity, content validity, and applicability to an educational setting). Final facilitators and barriers for the simulator were compiled and the top answers of each are presented. The five quantitative probe tube placement measurements for each participant were averaged, SDs were calculated, and contacts with the TM while placing the probe tube were recorded. RESULTS: The average face validity score over all questions for the adult model was 65% (SD = 18.2) whereas the pediatric model received a score of 64% (16.4). The overall content validity average score was 78.7% (17) and applicability to an educational setting had an average score of 80% (5.33). The average distance-to-TM across all trials and participants was 3.74 mm (1.82) for the adult model and 2.77 mm (0.94) for the pediatric model with only one participant exceeding the recommended maximum of 5 mm. Listed shortcomings of the current simulator included realism of the 3D-printed ear, ease of insertion of an otoscope tip into the ear, ability to visualize the ear canal "landmarks" and the TM, and foam tip insertion experience. CONCLUSIONS: Results were generally very positive for the simulator, and future iterations will look to improve the flexibility and texture of the ear, as well as the otoscopic view of the ear canal and TM.
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 | 0,012 | 0,057 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 ».