A46 SELF-ASSESSMENT ACCURACY OF TECHNICAL AND NON-TECHNICAL SKILLS IN LIVE COLONOSCOPIES BY NOVICE ENDOSCOPISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate self-assessment, usually represented by a high agreement between a self-rating and an external-rating, is an important process for skill development. In colonoscopy, skills can be categorized as technical (e.g. scope navigation) or non-technical (e.g. communication). There is a paucity of research examining the accuracy of self-assessment of technical and non-technical skills in colonoscopy among novices. To investigate the accuracy of self-assessment for technical skills and non-technical skills in live colonoscopies among novice endoscopists. Novice endoscopists (performed <50 previous colonoscopies) were recruited. Each participant completed two clinical colonoscopies. Video recordings of each colonoscopy procedure were assessed by an independent expert endoscopist, who was blinded to participant identity. Technical skills were assessed using the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), a procedure-specific assessment tool with good validity evidence. Non-technical skills were assessed using a modification of the Objective Structured Assessment of Non-technical skills (m-OSANTS), which also has good validity evidence. Participants self-assessed their performance immediately following each colonoscopy using the same instruments. Self-assessment accuracy between participant and expert ratings was determined using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC1,1) and paired-sample t-tests. Thirty-nine novice endoscopists participated. Agreement between participant and expert ratings as measured by the ICC was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.03–0.62) and 0.32 (95% CI: -0.01–0.59) for technical and non-technical skills, respectively. There was a significant difference between technical skills scores assigned by participants and expert assessors, with a mean difference of -8.56 (p=0.03). There was no significant difference between the non-technical skills scores assigned by participants and expert assessors, with a mean difference of -0.29 (p=0.603). Overall, there was generally poor-to-moderate self-assessment accuracy of novices for technical and non-technical skills. Moreover, novices tended to over-rate their performance, as highlighted by the negative difference scores. However, participants’ scores were not significantly over-rated for non-technical skills. Taken together, these results suggest that self-assessment accuracy among novices for technical and non-technical skills in endoscopy is an area for further development. None
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".