Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities
Study objectives: To determine (1) reliability and validity estimates of three modalities used to assess open thoracotomy procedural competency and (2) the effect of computer practice on procedural performance as measured by the three assessment modalities. Methods: An experimental, sequential asses...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of emergency medicine 1996-12, Vol.28 (6), p.641-647 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 647 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 641 |
| container_title | Annals of emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Chapman, Dane M Rhee, Kenneth J Marx, John A Honigman, Benjamin Panacek, Edward A Martinez, Dennis Brofeldt, B.Tomas Cavanaugh, Sally H |
| description | Study objectives: To determine (1) reliability and validity estimates of three modalities used to assess open thoracotomy procedural competency and (2) the effect of computer practice on procedural performance as measured by the three assessment modalities.
Methods: An experimental, sequential assessment design with volunteer examinees completing all three assessment modalities (paper, computer, pig model) was implemented at the animal support facilities of a university medical school with an affiliated emergency medicine residency program. Level of physician training (student, resident, faculty) and type of computer practice (thoracotomy, cricothyrotomy) were independent variables. Procedural competency scores were determined for each modality; scores were defined in terms of performance time and performance accuracy for three thoracotomy procedures (opening the chest, pericardiotomy, and aortic cross-clamping).
Results: Thoracotomy performance on the pig reliably discriminated among examinees known to differ in level of training. However, computer simulation performance did not significantly differ among examinees with different levels of training. Computer simulation practice significantly improved later performance on the computer assessment (
P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70087-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78608841</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0196064496700872</els_id><sourcerecordid>78608841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-ac45911536a29f8da8ceeec6ce9acdff4c25a0cd45ab34f2c61bd63febb8288f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkF2L1DAUhoMo67j6ExZyIaIX1aRN09QbWQa_YGWFHb0SQnpy4kbaZjZJhf57szvD3AoH3ovznA8eQi44e8sZl-9uGO9lxaQQr3v5pmNMdVX9iGw467tKdpI9JpsT8pQ8S-kPY6wXNT8jZ6pvm1Ib8ut6jzPd3YZoIOQwrfR7DIB2iWak2zDtMeMM63v604ze-rzSm7zYlQZHd2jg1s-_qZktvUwJU5pwzvRbsIXNHtNz8sSZMeGLY56TH58-7rZfqqvrz1-3l1cVCMFzZUC0PedtI03dO2WNAkQECdgbsM4JqFvDwIrWDI1wNUg-WNk4HAZVK-Wac_LqsHcfw92CKevJJ8BxNDOGJelOSaaU4AVsDyDEkFJEp_fRTyaumjN9b1U_WNX3ynTJB6u6LnMXxwPLMKE9TR01lv7LY98kMKOLZgafTljd8lKiYB8OGBYZfz1GncAXvWh9RMjaBv-fR_4BCwaV-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78608841</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Chapman, Dane M ; Rhee, Kenneth J ; Marx, John A ; Honigman, Benjamin ; Panacek, Edward A ; Martinez, Dennis ; Brofeldt, B.Tomas ; Cavanaugh, Sally H</creator><creatorcontrib>Chapman, Dane M ; Rhee, Kenneth J ; Marx, John A ; Honigman, Benjamin ; Panacek, Edward A ; Martinez, Dennis ; Brofeldt, B.Tomas ; Cavanaugh, Sally H</creatorcontrib><description>Study objectives: To determine (1) reliability and validity estimates of three modalities used to assess open thoracotomy procedural competency and (2) the effect of computer practice on procedural performance as measured by the three assessment modalities.
Methods: An experimental, sequential assessment design with volunteer examinees completing all three assessment modalities (paper, computer, pig model) was implemented at the animal support facilities of a university medical school with an affiliated emergency medicine residency program. Level of physician training (student, resident, faculty) and type of computer practice (thoracotomy, cricothyrotomy) were independent variables. Procedural competency scores were determined for each modality; scores were defined in terms of performance time and performance accuracy for three thoracotomy procedures (opening the chest, pericardiotomy, and aortic cross-clamping).
Results: Thoracotomy performance on the pig reliably discriminated among examinees known to differ in level of training. However, computer simulation performance did not significantly differ among examinees with different levels of training. Computer simulation practice significantly improved later performance on the computer assessment (
P<.05) but not on the pig assessment. The greatest predictor of procedural competency (time and accuracy) on the pig assessment was the ability to sequentially order procedural steps.
Conclusion: This study establishes the pig model as superior to the paper and computer models as the criterion standard for open thoracotomy assessment. Psychometric properties support the pig model as the most reliable and valid model yet described for assessing thoracotomy procedural competency. Computer simulation practice using visual images (complex anatomy) and the sequential ordering of procedural steps through paper modeling show promise for teaching and assessment of prerequisite skills required to develop psychomotor procedural competency. [Chapman DM, Rhee KJ, Marx JA, Honigman B, Panacek EA, Martinez D, Brofeldt BT, Cavanaugh SH: Open thoracotomy procedural competency: A validity study of teaching and assessment modalities.
Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:641-647.]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-0644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6760</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70087-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8953953</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AEMED3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence ; Computer Simulation ; Disease Models, Animal ; Education, Medical, Graduate ; Emergency Medicine - education ; Faculty, Medical ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Medical sciences ; Students, Medical ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the respiratory system ; Swine ; Teaching - methods ; Thoracotomy</subject><ispartof>Annals of emergency medicine, 1996-12, Vol.28 (6), p.641-647</ispartof><rights>1996 Mosby, Inc.</rights><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-ac45911536a29f8da8ceeec6ce9acdff4c25a0cd45ab34f2c61bd63febb8288f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-ac45911536a29f8da8ceeec6ce9acdff4c25a0cd45ab34f2c61bd63febb8288f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70087-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2512514$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8953953$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chapman, Dane M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhee, Kenneth J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marx, John A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honigman, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panacek, Edward A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brofeldt, B.Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavanaugh, Sally H</creatorcontrib><title>Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities</title><title>Annals of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Ann Emerg Med</addtitle><description>Study objectives: To determine (1) reliability and validity estimates of three modalities used to assess open thoracotomy procedural competency and (2) the effect of computer practice on procedural performance as measured by the three assessment modalities.
Methods: An experimental, sequential assessment design with volunteer examinees completing all three assessment modalities (paper, computer, pig model) was implemented at the animal support facilities of a university medical school with an affiliated emergency medicine residency program. Level of physician training (student, resident, faculty) and type of computer practice (thoracotomy, cricothyrotomy) were independent variables. Procedural competency scores were determined for each modality; scores were defined in terms of performance time and performance accuracy for three thoracotomy procedures (opening the chest, pericardiotomy, and aortic cross-clamping).
Results: Thoracotomy performance on the pig reliably discriminated among examinees known to differ in level of training. However, computer simulation performance did not significantly differ among examinees with different levels of training. Computer simulation practice significantly improved later performance on the computer assessment (
P<.05) but not on the pig assessment. The greatest predictor of procedural competency (time and accuracy) on the pig assessment was the ability to sequentially order procedural steps.
Conclusion: This study establishes the pig model as superior to the paper and computer models as the criterion standard for open thoracotomy assessment. Psychometric properties support the pig model as the most reliable and valid model yet described for assessing thoracotomy procedural competency. Computer simulation practice using visual images (complex anatomy) and the sequential ordering of procedural steps through paper modeling show promise for teaching and assessment of prerequisite skills required to develop psychomotor procedural competency. [Chapman DM, Rhee KJ, Marx JA, Honigman B, Panacek EA, Martinez D, Brofeldt BT, Cavanaugh SH: Open thoracotomy procedural competency: A validity study of teaching and assessment modalities.
Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:641-647.]</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Disease Models, Animal</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Graduate</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine - education</subject><subject>Faculty, Medical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Students, Medical</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the respiratory system</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Teaching - methods</subject><subject>Thoracotomy</subject><issn>0196-0644</issn><issn>1097-6760</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkF2L1DAUhoMo67j6ExZyIaIX1aRN09QbWQa_YGWFHb0SQnpy4kbaZjZJhf57szvD3AoH3ovznA8eQi44e8sZl-9uGO9lxaQQr3v5pmNMdVX9iGw467tKdpI9JpsT8pQ8S-kPY6wXNT8jZ6pvm1Ib8ut6jzPd3YZoIOQwrfR7DIB2iWak2zDtMeMM63v604ze-rzSm7zYlQZHd2jg1s-_qZktvUwJU5pwzvRbsIXNHtNz8sSZMeGLY56TH58-7rZfqqvrz1-3l1cVCMFzZUC0PedtI03dO2WNAkQECdgbsM4JqFvDwIrWDI1wNUg-WNk4HAZVK-Wac_LqsHcfw92CKevJJ8BxNDOGJelOSaaU4AVsDyDEkFJEp_fRTyaumjN9b1U_WNX3ynTJB6u6LnMXxwPLMKE9TR01lv7LY98kMKOLZgafTljd8lKiYB8OGBYZfz1GncAXvWh9RMjaBv-fR_4BCwaV-A</recordid><startdate>19961201</startdate><enddate>19961201</enddate><creator>Chapman, Dane M</creator><creator>Rhee, Kenneth J</creator><creator>Marx, John A</creator><creator>Honigman, Benjamin</creator><creator>Panacek, Edward A</creator><creator>Martinez, Dennis</creator><creator>Brofeldt, B.Tomas</creator><creator>Cavanaugh, Sally H</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19961201</creationdate><title>Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities</title><author>Chapman, Dane M ; Rhee, Kenneth J ; Marx, John A ; Honigman, Benjamin ; Panacek, Edward A ; Martinez, Dennis ; Brofeldt, B.Tomas ; Cavanaugh, Sally H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-ac45911536a29f8da8ceeec6ce9acdff4c25a0cd45ab34f2c61bd63febb8288f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Disease Models, Animal</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Graduate</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine - education</topic><topic>Faculty, Medical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Students, Medical</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the respiratory system</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Teaching - methods</topic><topic>Thoracotomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chapman, Dane M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhee, Kenneth J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marx, John A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honigman, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panacek, Edward A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brofeldt, B.Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavanaugh, Sally H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chapman, Dane M</au><au>Rhee, Kenneth J</au><au>Marx, John A</au><au>Honigman, Benjamin</au><au>Panacek, Edward A</au><au>Martinez, Dennis</au><au>Brofeldt, B.Tomas</au><au>Cavanaugh, Sally H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities</atitle><jtitle>Annals of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Emerg Med</addtitle><date>1996-12-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>641</spage><epage>647</epage><pages>641-647</pages><issn>0196-0644</issn><eissn>1097-6760</eissn><coden>AEMED3</coden><abstract>Study objectives: To determine (1) reliability and validity estimates of three modalities used to assess open thoracotomy procedural competency and (2) the effect of computer practice on procedural performance as measured by the three assessment modalities.
Methods: An experimental, sequential assessment design with volunteer examinees completing all three assessment modalities (paper, computer, pig model) was implemented at the animal support facilities of a university medical school with an affiliated emergency medicine residency program. Level of physician training (student, resident, faculty) and type of computer practice (thoracotomy, cricothyrotomy) were independent variables. Procedural competency scores were determined for each modality; scores were defined in terms of performance time and performance accuracy for three thoracotomy procedures (opening the chest, pericardiotomy, and aortic cross-clamping).
Results: Thoracotomy performance on the pig reliably discriminated among examinees known to differ in level of training. However, computer simulation performance did not significantly differ among examinees with different levels of training. Computer simulation practice significantly improved later performance on the computer assessment (
P<.05) but not on the pig assessment. The greatest predictor of procedural competency (time and accuracy) on the pig assessment was the ability to sequentially order procedural steps.
Conclusion: This study establishes the pig model as superior to the paper and computer models as the criterion standard for open thoracotomy assessment. Psychometric properties support the pig model as the most reliable and valid model yet described for assessing thoracotomy procedural competency. Computer simulation practice using visual images (complex anatomy) and the sequential ordering of procedural steps through paper modeling show promise for teaching and assessment of prerequisite skills required to develop psychomotor procedural competency. [Chapman DM, Rhee KJ, Marx JA, Honigman B, Panacek EA, Martinez D, Brofeldt BT, Cavanaugh SH: Open thoracotomy procedural competency: A validity study of teaching and assessment modalities.
Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:641-647.]</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>8953953</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70087-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0196-0644 |
| ispartof | Annals of emergency medicine, 1996-12, Vol.28 (6), p.641-647 |
| issn | 0196-0644 1097-6760 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78608841 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Animals Biological and medical sciences Clinical Competence Computer Simulation Disease Models, Animal Education, Medical, Graduate Emergency Medicine - education Faculty, Medical Humans Internship and Residency Medical sciences Students, Medical Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surgery of the respiratory system Swine Teaching - methods Thoracotomy |
| title | Open Thoracotomy Procedural Competency: Validity Study of Teaching and Assessment Modalities |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T15%3A01%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Open%20Thoracotomy%20Procedural%20Competency:%20Validity%20Study%20of%20Teaching%20and%20Assessment%20Modalities&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Chapman,%20Dane%20M&rft.date=1996-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=641&rft.epage=647&rft.pages=641-647&rft.issn=0196-0644&rft.eissn=1097-6760&rft.coden=AEMED3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70087-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78608841%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78608841&rft_id=info:pmid/8953953&rft_els_id=S0196064496700872&rfr_iscdi=true |