Assessment of laparoscopic skills: comparing the reliability of global rating and entrustability tools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.72369Abstract
Background: Competence by design (CBD) residency programs increasingly depend on tools that provide reliable assessments, require minimal rater training, and measure progression through the CBD milestones. To assess intraoperative skills, global rating scales and entrustability ratings are commonly used but may require extensive training. The Competency Continuum (CC) is a CBD framework that may be used as an assessment tool to assess laparoscopic skills. The study aimed to compare the CC to two other assessment tools: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and the Zwisch scale.
Methods: Four expert surgeons rated thirty laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. Two raters used the GOALS scale while the remaining two raters used both the Zwisch scale and CC. Each rater received scale-specific training. Descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliabilities (IRR), and Pearson’s correlations were calculated for each scale.
Results: Significant positive correlations between GOALS and Zwisch (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), CC and GOALS (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), and CC and Zwisch (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) were found. The CC had an inter-rater reliability of 0.74 whereas the GOALS and Zwisch scales had inter-rater reliabilities of 0.44 and 0.43, respectively. Compared to GOALS and Zwisch scales, the CC had the highest inter-rater reliability and required minimal rater training to achieve reliable scores.
Conclusion: The CC may be a reliable tool to assess intraoperative laparoscopic skills and provide trainees with formative feedback relevant to the CBD milestones. Further research should collect further validity evidence for the use of the CC as an independent assessment tool.
Metrics
References
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CBD start, launch and exam schedule.
http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/documents/cbd-community-touchpoint/cbd-rollout-schedule-e. [Accessed Oct 3, 2020].
University of Toronto Department of Medicine. Competency based medical education. https://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/competency-based-medical-education . [Accessed Oct 3, 2020].
de Montbrun S, Satterthwaite L, Grantcharov TP. Setting pass scores for assessment of technical performance by surgical trainees. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):300-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10047
Epstein, Ronald M., Cox, Malcolm, Irby DM. Assessment in medical education. NEJM. 2007;100(2):387-396. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra054784
Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: Closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1010-1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00248.x
Middleton RM, Baldwin MJ, Akhtar K, Alvand A, Rees JL. Which Global Rating Scale? J Bone Jt Surg. 2016;98(1):75-81. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00434
Kramp KH, Van Det MJ, Hoff C, Lamme B, Veeger NJGM, Pierie JPEN. Validity and reliability of Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) in novice trainees performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(2):351-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.08.006
Gumbs AA, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL. Evaluation of resident laparoscopic performance using global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(2):308-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.11.010
Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005;190(1):107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004
Williams RG, Sanfey H, Chen XP, Dunnington GL. A controlled study to determine measurement conditions necessary for a reliable and valid operative performance assessment: a controlled prospective observational study. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):177-187. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825b6de4
YouTube. March 27 2015 CBD Webinar EPA Milestones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CScsSywOaAU. [Accessed Oct 3, 2020].
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. EPAs and CanMEDS milestones. http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/cbd/implementation/cbd-milestones-epas-e. [Accessed Oct 3, 2020].
Darosa DA, Zwischenberger JB, Meyerson SL, et al. A theory-based model for teaching and assessing residents in the operating room. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(1):24-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.07.007
George BC, Teitelbaum EN, Meyerson SL, et al. Reliability, validity, and feasibility of the zwisch scale for the assessment of intraoperative performance. J Surg Educ.. Vol 71. Elsevier Inc.; 2014:e90-e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.06.018
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CBD competence continuum diagram. 2015;(June):2015. https://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/documents/cbd/cbd-competence-continuum-diagram-legal-e.pdf. [Accessed on May 17, 2022].
Al-Moteri M. Entrustable professional activities in nursing: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Sci. 2020;7(3):277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.06.009
Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-682. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704
Research Guides at University of Southern California. Types of research designs - organizing your social sciences research paper https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/researchdesigns. [Accessed Mar 11, 2022].
Gawad N, Fowler A, Mimeault R, Raiche I. The inter-rater reliability of technical skills assessment and retention of rater training. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(4):1088-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.01.001
Ilgen JS, Ma IWY, Hatala R, Cook DA. A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med Educ. 2015;49(2):161-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12621
Rekman J, Gofton W, Dudek N, Gofton T, Hamstra SJ. Entrustability scales: outlining their usefulness for competency-based clinical assessment. Acad Med. 2016;91(2):186-190. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001045
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCM.2016.02.012
Touchie C, Ten Cate O. The promise, perils, problems and progress of competency-based medical education. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12839
Crossley J, Johnson G, Booth J, Wade W. Good questions, good answers: Construct alignment improves the performance of workplace-based assessment scales. Med Educ. 2011;45(6):560-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03913.x
Weller JM, Castanelli DJ, Chen Y, Jolly B. Making robust assessments of specialist trainees’ workplace performance. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(2):207-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew412
Gawad N, Fowler A, Mimeault R, Raiche I. The inter-rater reliability of technical skills assessment and retention of rater training. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(4):1088-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.01.001
Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM. Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2003;17(10):1525-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464-003-0035-4/TABLES/2
Bilgic E, Watanabe Y, McKendy K, et al. Reliable assessment of operative performance. Am J Surg. 2016;211(2):426-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.10.008
Tekian A, Watling CJ, Roberts TE, Steinert Y, Norcini J. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency-based education. Med Teach. 2017;39(12):1245-1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1372564
Silber CG, Nasca TJ, Paskin DL, Eiger G, Robeson M, Veloski JJ. Do global rating forms enable program directors to assess the ACGME competencies? Acad Med. 2004;79(6):549-556. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200406000-00010
Anderson PAM. Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young? https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-000295.1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Kameela Miriam Alibhai, Amanda Fowler, Nada Gawad, Timothy J Wood, Isabelle Raîche
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
