Prospective Comparison of Live Evaluation and Video Review in the Evaluation of Operator Performance in a Pediatric Emergency Airway Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Real-time assessment of operator performance during procedural simulation is a common practice that requires undivided attention by 1 or more reviewers, potentially over many repetitions of the same case. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether reviewers display better interrater agreement of procedural competency when observing recorded, rather than live, performance; and to develop an assessment tool for pediatric rapid sequence intubation (pRSI). METHODS: A framework of a previously established Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) tool was modified for pRSI. Emergency medicine residents (postgraduate year 1-4) were prospectively enrolled in a pRSI simulation scenario and evaluated by 2 live raters using the modified tool. Sessions were videotaped and reviewed by the same raters at least 4 months later. Raters were blinded to their initial rating. Interrater agreement was determined by using the Krippendorff generalized concordance method. RESULTS: Overall interrater agreement for live review was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.78) and for video was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82). Live review was significantly superior to video review in only 1 of the OSATS domains (Preparation) and was equivalent in the other domains. Intrarater agreement between the live and video evaluation was very good, greater than 0.75 for all raters, with a mean of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85). CONCLUSION: The modified OSATS assessment tool demonstrated some evidence of validity in discriminating among levels of resident experience and high interreviewer reliability. With this tool, intrareviewer reliability was high between live and 4-months' delayed video review of the simulated procedure, which supports feasibility of delayed video review in resident assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".