Development of a Cast Application Simulator and Evaluation of Objective Measures of Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical simulation offers a low-risk learning environment with repetitive practice opportunities for orthopaedic residents. It is increasingly prevalent in many training programs, as acquisition of technical skills in the face of educational demands and reduced work hours becomes more challenging. In addition to surgical skills, orthopaedic residents must also learn the technique of cast application. Deficiencies in casting skill are risk factors for re-displacement of fractures and cast-specific complications. Formal educational models to instruct or to evaluate casting technique have not been well described or tested. The purposes of this study were to develop a cast application simulator and to validate a novel method of evaluating casting skill. METHODS: A module that simulates short arm cast application on a synthetic forearm model was developed. An Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist was created with use of Delphi methodology involving nine content experts (five orthopaedic surgeons and four orthopaedic technologists). Nine participants (three medical students, three orthopaedic residents, two orthopaedic fellows, and one orthopaedic technologist) were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the checklist. Nine de-identified videos of cast application were recorded and were utilized to test the newly developed Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist and Modified Global Rating Scale for reliability and validity. Participants were grouped by training level (medical students, orthopaedic residents, and orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists) and were evaluated twice. RESULTS: Reliability was high as shown by intraclass correlation. The inter-rater reliability was 0.85 for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill, 0.81 for the Modified Global Rating Scale performance, and 0.78 for the Modified Global Rating Scale final product; the intra-rater reliability was 0.88 for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill, 0.85 for the Modified Global Rating Scale performance, and 0.81 for the Modified Global Rating Scale final product. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist scores were 9.28 points for the medical students, 17.46 points for the orthopaedic residents, and 18.85 points for the orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists (p < 0.05, F = 6.32). The Modified Global Rating Scale performance and final product scores also reflected the level of training. Post hoc analysis showed a significant difference between the medical students and orthopaedic fellows or orthopaedic technologists for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist and Modified Global Rating Scale. CONCLUSIONS: This casting simulation model and evaluation instrument is a reliable assessment of casting skill in applying a short arm cast. However, given the inability to stratify all three groups on the basis of the level of training, further work is needed to establish construct validity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".