Robert M Middleton1, Mathew J Baldwin2, Kash Akhtar3, Abtin Alvand4, Jonathan L Rees4. 1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Rob.middleton@doctors.org.uk. 2. Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, United Kingdom. 3. Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom Department of Orthopaedics, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the move to competency-based models of surgical training, a number of assessment methods have been developed. Of these, global rating scales have emerged as popular tools, and several are specific to the assessment of arthroscopic skills. Our aim was to determine which one of a group of commonly used global rating scales demonstrated superiority in the assessment of simulated arthroscopic skills. METHODS: Sixty-three individuals of varying surgical experience performed a number of arthroscopic tasks on a virtual reality simulator (VirtaMed ArthroS). Performance was blindly assessed by two observers using three commonly used global rating scales used to assess simulated skills. Performance was also assessed by validated objective motion analysis. RESULTS: All of the global rating scales demonstrated construct validity, with significant differences between each skill level and each arthroscopic task (p < 0.002, Mann-Whitney U test). Interrater reliability was excellent for each global rating scale. Correlations of global rating scale ratings with motion analysis were high and strong for each global rating scale when correlated with time taken (Spearman rho, -0.95 to -0.76; p < 0.001), and correlation with total path length was significant and moderately strong (Spearman rho, -0.94 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No single global rating scale demonstrated superiority as an assessment tool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For these commonly used arthroscopic global rating scales, none was particularly superior and any one score could therefore be used. Agreement on using a single score seems sensible, and it would seem unnecessary to develop further scales with the same domains for these purposes.
BACKGROUND: With the move to competency-based models of surgical training, a number of assessment methods have been developed. Of these, global rating scales have emerged as popular tools, and several are specific to the assessment of arthroscopic skills. Our aim was to determine which one of a group of commonly used global rating scales demonstrated superiority in the assessment of simulated arthroscopic skills. METHODS: Sixty-three individuals of varying surgical experience performed a number of arthroscopic tasks on a virtual reality simulator (VirtaMed ArthroS). Performance was blindly assessed by two observers using three commonly used global rating scales used to assess simulated skills. Performance was also assessed by validated objective motion analysis. RESULTS: All of the global rating scales demonstrated construct validity, with significant differences between each skill level and each arthroscopic task (p < 0.002, Mann-Whitney U test). Interrater reliability was excellent for each global rating scale. Correlations of global rating scale ratings with motion analysis were high and strong for each global rating scale when correlated with time taken (Spearman rho, -0.95 to -0.76; p < 0.001), and correlation with total path length was significant and moderately strong (Spearman rho, -0.94 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No single global rating scale demonstrated superiority as an assessment tool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For these commonly used arthroscopic global rating scales, none was particularly superior and any one score could therefore be used. Agreement on using a single score seems sensible, and it would seem unnecessary to develop further scales with the same domains for these purposes.