J J Stunt1, G M M J Kerkhoffs2, C N van Dijk3, G J M Tuijthof4,5. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Orthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, G4-262 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.j.stunt@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Orthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, G4-262 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.m.kerkhoffs@amc.uva.nl. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Orthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, G4-262 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.n.vandijk@amc.uva.nl. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Orthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, G4-262 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.j.tuijthof@amc.uva.nl. 5. Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Materials and Maritime Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. g.j.tuijthof@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Virtual reality simulator training has become important for acquiring arthroscopic skills. A new simulator for knee arthroscopy ArthroS™ has been developed. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate face and construct validity, executed according to a protocol used previously to validate arthroscopic simulators. METHODS: Twenty-seven participants were divided into three groups having different levels of arthroscopic experience. Participants answered questions regarding general information and the outer appearance of the simulator for face validity. Construct validity was assessed with one standardized navigation task. Face validity, educational value and user friendliness were further determined by giving participants three exercises and by asking them to fill out the questionnaire. RESULTS: Construct validity was demonstrated between experts and beginners. Median task times were not significantly different for all repetitions between novices and intermediates, and between intermediates and experts. Median face validity was 8.3 for the outer appearance, 6.5 for the intra-articular joint and 4.7 for surgical instruments. Educational value and user friendliness were perceived as nonsatisfactory, especially because of the lack of tactile feedback. CONCLUSION: The ArthroS™ demonstrated construct validity between novices and experts, but did not demonstrate full face validity. Future improvements should be mainly focused on the development of tactile feedback. It is necessary that a newly presented simulator is validated to prove it actually contributes to proficiency of skills.
PURPOSE: Virtual reality simulator training has become important for acquiring arthroscopic skills. A new simulator for knee arthroscopy ArthroS™ has been developed. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate face and construct validity, executed according to a protocol used previously to validate arthroscopic simulators. METHODS: Twenty-seven participants were divided into three groups having different levels of arthroscopic experience. Participants answered questions regarding general information and the outer appearance of the simulator for face validity. Construct validity was assessed with one standardized navigation task. Face validity, educational value and user friendliness were further determined by giving participants three exercises and by asking them to fill out the questionnaire. RESULTS: Construct validity was demonstrated between experts and beginners. Median task times were not significantly different for all repetitions between novices and intermediates, and between intermediates and experts. Median face validity was 8.3 for the outer appearance, 6.5 for the intra-articular joint and 4.7 for surgical instruments. Educational value and user friendliness were perceived as nonsatisfactory, especially because of the lack of tactile feedback. CONCLUSION: The ArthroS™ demonstrated construct validity between novices and experts, but did not demonstrate full face validity. Future improvements should be mainly focused on the development of tactile feedback. It is necessary that a newly presented simulator is validated to prove it actually contributes to proficiency of skills.
Authors: David M Wilhelm; Kenneth Ogan; Claus G Roehrborn; Jeffery A Cadeddu; Margaret S Pearle Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Yaron Munz; Alex M Almoudaris; Krishna Moorthy; Aristotelis Dosis; Alexander D Liddle; Ara W Darzi Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof; P Visser; Inger N Sierevelt; C Niek Van Dijk; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Stephan Reppenhagen; Manuel Weißenberger; Thomas Barthel; Maximilian Rudert; Hermann Anetzberger Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Stefan Rahm; Marco Germann; Andreas Hingsammer; Karl Wieser; Christian Gerber Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.342