Psychometric Properties of a New Tool to Assess Task-Specific and Global Competency in Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To establish and validate an assessment tool of cataract surgery performed by residents suitable for a competency-based curriculum. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A three-component evaluation tool was created based on review of the literature and was refined using a modified Delphi technique. Faculty surgeons viewed two videos of cataract surgery, performed by a novice and an expert, and completed the evaluation tool. Results were analyzed for the psychometric properties. RESULTS: Evaluators concluded the scale had excellent face validity. Construct validity showed the scale to reliably distinguish (P < .001) between novice (30.3 ± 6.1) and experienced (48.3 ± 7.2) surgeons. Internal consistency of the scale was high, with Cronbach's alpha equal to 0.981. Inter-rater reliability was high with an intraclass correlation coefficient equal to 0.811 (F(df) = 53.2 (25), P < .001). CONCLUSION: The tool has excellent face validity, content validity, and reliability. Its task-specific, global-index scale and quantitative data form make it a valuable tool to assess residents' surgical skills.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".