Assessment of a virtual reality temporal bone surgical simulator: a national face and content validity study
Trainees in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery must gain proficiency in a variety of challenging temporal bone surgical techniques. Traditional teaching has relied on the use of cadavers; however, this method is resource-intensive and does not allow for repeated practice. Virtual reality surgical...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of otolaryngology 2020-04, Vol.49 (1), p.17-17 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Trainees in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery must gain proficiency in a variety of challenging temporal bone surgical techniques. Traditional teaching has relied on the use of cadavers; however, this method is resource-intensive and does not allow for repeated practice. Virtual reality surgical training is a growing field that is increasingly being adopted in Otolaryngology. CardinalSim is a virtual reality temporal bone surgical simulator that offers a high-quality, inexpensive adjunct to traditional teaching methods. The objective of this study was to establish the face and content validity of CardinalSim through a national study.
Otolaryngologists and resident trainees from across Canada were recruited to evaluate CardinalSim. Ethics approval and informed consent was obtained. A face and content validity questionnaire with questions categorized into 13 domains was distributed to participants following simulator use. Descriptive statistics were used to describe questionnaire results, and either Chi-square or Fishers exact tests were used to compare responses between junior residents, senior residents, and practising surgeons.
Sixty-two participants from thirteen different Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery programs were included in the study (32 practicing surgeons; 30 resident trainees). Face validity was achieved for 5 out of 7 domains, while content validity was achieved for 5 out of 6 domains. Significant differences between groups (p-value of |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1916-0216 1916-0208 1916-0216 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s40463-020-00411-y |