A Reliable and Valid Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill for the Application of a Pavlik Harness Based on International Expert Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of competency-based training is increasing in medical education as it offers individualized learning opportunities to master required skills. Inherent to this method of teaching is the need for standardized and objective assessments of skill mastery. In orthopaedic surgery, educational programs have focused on surgical skills with lesser emphasis on nonoperative techniques. Accordingly, formal evaluation tools specific to Pavlik Harness application do not exist, despite its widespread use and potential complications from inappropriate application. This study sought to develop a reliable and valid evaluation tool based on international expert consensus to standardize and evaluate Pavlik Harness application for developmental dysplasia of the hip. METHODS: Consensus was sought from 10 content experts using Delphi methodology. Resulting items formed the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS). Thirty-five participants were selected into 3 a priori groups (expert, intermediate and novice) based on Pavlik Harness experience. On 2 occasions, 3 content experts assessed randomized and deidentified videotapes of each participant applying a Pavlik Harness to an infant model using the OSATS and global rating scales (GRS). The reliability and validity of the OSATS was determined with intraclass (ICC) and Pearson correlations and analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Consensus was obtained after 2 rounds of structured surveying and resulted in a 25-item OSATS. The reliability of the OSATS was excellent with an ICC of 0.96 for interrater and 0.98 for test-retest reliability. Construct validity was excellent with high correlations between OSATS and GRS (>0.90). In addition, the OSATS discriminated between expert, intermediate, and novice users. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a competency-based evaluation tool for Pavlik Harness application based on consensus from international experts. The OSATS has been shown to be a reliable and valid method for assessing Pavlik Harness application that can discriminate between expert, intermediate, and novice users. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.027 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".