PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the validation process for assessing an instrument to assess residents' aseptic technique skills. METHODS: The validation study entailed comparisons of the performance of aseptic technique procedures between postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) surgical residents and PGY-2/3 surgical residents. We also compared the performance of PGY-1 surgical residents from 2 different academic years for the same procedures. Finally, we compared the performance of novices (medical students) and experts (operating room nurses) in an effort to determine validity. RESULTS: Our initial analysis found no significant difference between the performance of PGY-1 (mean score, 75.8) and PGY-2/3 (mean score, 75.6) surgical residents for aseptic technique (t((55)) = 0.84, P = 0.404). Further investigation of validity was obtained to determine whether the no difference results reflected a lack of reliability or validity or a true equivalence between the 2 cohorts. The comparison of novices and experts produced the following findings. For reliability, the internal consistency of the checklist for each of the 2 raters was 0.87 and 0.71 (Cronbach α), interrater reliability was 0.74, with P < 0.001 (intraclass correlation coefficient) for the global scale. (Internal consistency was done within instrument, ie, between items not between raters.) For validity, operating room nurses outperformed students on the global scale (t(14) = 7.47, P < 0.0001 and t((14)) = 10.66, P < 0.0001 for the 2 raters, respectively) and on several checklist items. The effect size values for raters were large (Cohen d = 3.0 and 4.4), providing validity evidence for the ability of this assessment to detect difference in performance on this task. CONCLUSION: The validation study showed that the instrument exhibited reliability and evidence for validity, making it useful for the assesment of aseptic technique skills in different specialties. Programs may want to consider using a validated instrument to check competence given that appropriate use of sterile technique frequently occurs in the context of unsupervised activities. Further work is needed to enhance resident skills in the area of aspectic technique because of limited improvement despite additional clinical experience.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the validation process for assessing an instrument to assess residents' aseptic technique skills. METHODS: The validation study entailed comparisons of the performance of aseptic technique procedures between postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) surgical residents and PGY-2/3 surgical residents. We also compared the performance of PGY-1 surgical residents from 2 different academic years for the same procedures. Finally, we compared the performance of novices (medical students) and experts (operating room nurses) in an effort to determine validity. RESULTS: Our initial analysis found no significant difference between the performance of PGY-1 (mean score, 75.8) and PGY-2/3 (mean score, 75.6) surgical residents for aseptic technique (t((55)) = 0.84, P = 0.404). Further investigation of validity was obtained to determine whether the no difference results reflected a lack of reliability or validity or a true equivalence between the 2 cohorts. The comparison of novices and experts produced the following findings. For reliability, the internal consistency of the checklist for each of the 2 raters was 0.87 and 0.71 (Cronbach α), interrater reliability was 0.74, with P < 0.001 (intraclass correlation coefficient) for the global scale. (Internal consistency was done within instrument, ie, between items not between raters.) For validity, operating room nurses outperformed students on the global scale (t(14) = 7.47, P < 0.0001 and t((14)) = 10.66, P < 0.0001 for the 2 raters, respectively) and on several checklist items. The effect size values for raters were large (Cohen d = 3.0 and 4.4), providing validity evidence for the ability of this assessment to detect difference in performance on this task. CONCLUSION: The validation study showed that the instrument exhibited reliability and evidence for validity, making it useful for the assesment of aseptic technique skills in different specialties. Programs may want to consider using a validated instrument to check competence given that appropriate use of sterile technique frequently occurs in the context of unsupervised activities. Further work is needed to enhance resident skills in the area of aspectic technique because of limited improvement despite additional clinical experience.
Authors: Georges L Savoldelli; Viren N Naik; Hwan S Joo; Patricia L Houston; Marianne Graham; Bevan Yee; Stanley J Hamstra Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Jason Park; Helen MacRae; Laura J Musselman; Peter Rossos; Stanley J Hamstra; Stephen Wolman; Richard K Reznick Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.565