Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira1,2, Romain Cendre3, Gabriela Hossu4,3, Christophe Leplat5,4, Jacques Felblinger4,3, Alain Blum5, Marc Braun6. 1. Service D'imagerie Guilloz, CHRU-Nancy, Hôpital Central, 29, Av Marechal Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy, France. ped_gt@hotmail.com. 2. Université de Lorraine, IADI, U947, Nancy, F-54000, France. ped_gt@hotmail.com. 3. INSERM, CIC-IT 1433, Nancy, F-54000, France. 4. Université de Lorraine, IADI, U947, Nancy, F-54000, France. 5. Service D'imagerie Guilloz, CHRU-Nancy, Hôpital Central, 29, Av Marechal Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy, France. 6. Service de Neuroradiologie, CHRU-Nancy, Hôpital Central, 29, Av Marechal Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the use of a volumetric simulation tool for the evaluation of radiology resident MR and CT interpretation skills. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-three participants were evaluated with a software allowing the visualisation of multiple volumetric image series. There were 7 medical students, 28 residents and 8 senior radiologists among the participants. Residents were divided into two sub-groups (novice and advanced). The test was composed of 15 exercises on general radiology and lasted 45 min. Participants answered a questionnaire on their experience with the test using a 5-point Likert scale. This study was approved by the dean of the medical school and did not require ethics committee approval. RESULTS: The reliability of the test was good with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.9. Test scores were significantly different in all sub-groups studies (p < 0.0225). The relation between test scores and the year of residency was logarithmic (R2 = 0.974). Participants agreed that the test reflected their radiological practice (3.9 ± 0.9 on a 5-point scale) and was better than the conventional evaluation methods (4.6 ± 0.5 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: This software provides a high quality evaluation tool for the assessment of the interpretation skills in radiology residents. KEY POINTS: • This tool allows volumetric image analysis of MR and CT studies. • A high reliability test could be created with this tool. • Test scores were strongly associated with the examinee expertise level. • Examinees positively evaluated the authenticity and usability of this tool.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the use of a volumetric simulation tool for the evaluation of radiology resident MR and CT interpretation skills. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-three participants were evaluated with a software allowing the visualisation of multiple volumetric image series. There were 7 medical students, 28 residents and 8 senior radiologists among the participants. Residents were divided into two sub-groups (novice and advanced). The test was composed of 15 exercises on general radiology and lasted 45 min. Participants answered a questionnaire on their experience with the test using a 5-point Likert scale. This study was approved by the dean of the medical school and did not require ethics committee approval. RESULTS: The reliability of the test was good with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.9. Test scores were significantly different in all sub-groups studies (p < 0.0225). The relation between test scores and the year of residency was logarithmic (R2 = 0.974). Participants agreed that the test reflected their radiological practice (3.9 ± 0.9 on a 5-point scale) and was better than the conventional evaluation methods (4.6 ± 0.5 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: This software provides a high quality evaluation tool for the assessment of the interpretation skills in radiology residents. KEY POINTS: • This tool allows volumetric image analysis of MR and CT studies. • A high reliability test could be created with this tool. • Test scores were strongly associated with the examinee expertise level. • Examinees positively evaluated the authenticity and usability of this tool.
Entities:
Keywords:
Education; Radiology residents; Radiology test; Test quality; Volumetric images
Authors: Alison L Chetlen; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Linda Probyn; William F Auffermann; Carolynn M DeBenedectis; Jamie Marko; Bradley B Pua; Takashi Shawn Sato; Brent P Little; Carol M Dell; David Sarkany; Lori Mankowski Gettle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Kara M Schwartz; Laurence J Eckel; Felix E Diehn; Christopher H Hunt; Brian J Bartholmai; Bradley J Erickson; David F Kallmes Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert J Tubbs; Brian Murphy; Martha B Mainiero; Marc Shapiro; Leo Kobayashi; David Lindquist; Jessica L Smith; Nathan Siegel Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Anouk van der Gijp; Cécile J Ravesloot; Marieke F van der Schaaf; Irene C van der Schaaf; Josephine C B M Huige; Koen L Vincken; Olle Th J Ten Cate; Jan P J van Schaik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Fabian Rengier; Matthias F Häfner; Roland Unterhinninghofen; Ralph Nawrotzki; Joachim Kirsch; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Kelly C Nelson; Ashley E Brown; Amanda Herrmann; Chloe Dorsey; Julie M Simon; Janice M Wilson; Stephanie A Savory; Lauren E Haydu Journal: Dermatol Pract Concept Date: 2020-10-26