Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Neck Dissection Assessment Tool to Spanish Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Training in Head and Neck surgery represents a complex process always in evolution. Due to the absence of specific surgical evaluation tools to assess neck dissection performance by residents during training, finding a proper way to evaluate those standards will be a matter of debate for decades, and continues to be a pending task in the field. Objective: Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the TSCND questionnaire to the Spanish language. Methods: A prospective data collection, about the performance of Spanish TSCND measured with Cronbach α. Results: Internal consistency of the task-specific checklist section measured was 0.752 (95% CI = 0.638 to 0.839) with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.749 (95% CI = 0.651-0.837). Internal consistency of the global rating scale section measured with Cronbach α was 0.788 (95% CI = 0.681 to 0.865) with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.789 (95% CI = 0.703-0.857). Conclusion: The development of specific tools to support surgical training education makes it possible to improve surgical skills evaluation. The Spanish translation of the TSCND is a reliable option for Spanish-Speaking surgical training and trainers in the development of an up-to-date competency-based curriculum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".