Pediatric Airway Management and Intubation Support Competency Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Assessment tools for health professionals providing airway management and team support during airway events are essential to facilitate learning and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the validity of evidence of the Pediatric Airway Management and Intubation Support (PAMIS) tool for use in assessing the competency of respiratory therapists (RTs) assisting with pediatric intubation in a simulated environment. Methods: The PAMIS tool, developed based on task deconstruction, comprises 10 items assessing 3 core competency domains (manual ventilation, intubation preparation and assistance, and interprofessional team collaboration) and a global rating of performance. Novice and intermediate RT trainees and experienced registered RTs performed a simulated airway management scenario that was assessed independently by 2 live raters and 2 blinded video-based raters using the PAMIS tool. Fifteen videos were also re-evaluated by blinded raters 3 months later. Validity evidence for the tool was generated following Messick’s validity framework, including evidence of content, response process, internal structure, and relations with other variables. Results: We analyzed assessments for 51 participants (15 novice, 21 intermediate, and 15 experienced participants) completed by 10 assessors. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.75), with item-total correlations ranging from 0.17 to 0.74. Inter-rater reliability was high for both live (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97) and video-based assessments (ICC = 0.85), with strong agreement between the 2 assessment modalities (ICC = 0.94). Test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). PAMIS scores differed significantly based on experience level ( P < .001) and correlated highly with a global assessment of performance ratings ( r = 0.89, P < .001). Both live and video-based ratings were perceived as user-friendly, with live assessments perceived as easier to use. Conclusions: The PAMIS tool demonstrated strong validity evidence for use as a formative assessment of competence for RTs providing pediatric airway management and intubation assistance within a simulated setting. This study presents a validated assessment tool designed to support competency-based RT education and practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".