Literature DB >> 28493166

Psychometric properties of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills examination.

Matthew Lineberry1, E Matthew Ritter2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) manual skills examination is a simulation-based assessment of five foundational skills in endoscopic surgery. With the FES skills exam becoming part of the board certification process in general surgery, continual investigation is needed to determine the validity with which the exam is supporting inferences and decision-making about examinees, as well as how it might be improved.
METHODS: The present study retrospectively analyzed performance and demographic details for the initial 344 examinees completing the FES skills exam.
RESULTS: The five tasks showed distinct degrees of difficulty, with Loop Reduction being especially difficult for examinees. Tasks related to one another positively but moderately, suggesting that the exam assesses both general and task-specific skills. The number of lower-endoscopic cases completed by an examinee strongly predicted performance, while upper endoscopy experience and career level (e.g., resident vs. fellow vs. practicing) did not. Hand dominance and the type of simulator used were not found to be related to scores. However, three demographic variables that related to one another-gender, glove size, and height-were also related to performance and pass/fail status.
CONCLUSIONS: This study's results generally support the validity argument for the FES skills exam while pointing to additional investigations to be undertaken as the exam is applied more broadly.

Keywords:  Psychometrics; Psychomotor skills; Simulation; Surgery; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28493166     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5590-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  16 in total

1.  Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery cognitive examination: development and validity evidence.

Authors:  Benjamin K Poulose; Melina C Vassiliou; Brian J Dunkin; John D Mellinger; Robert D Fanelli; Jose M Martinez; Jeffrey W Hazey; Lelan F Sillin; Conor P Delaney; Vic Velanovich; Gerald M Fried; James R Korndorffer; Jeffrey M Marks
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test.

Authors:  Carmen L Mueller; Pepa Kaneva; Gerald M Fried; John D Mellinger; Jeffrey M Marks; Brian J Dunkin; Kent van Sickle; Melina C Vassiliou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Much ado about differences: why expert-novice comparisons add little to the validity argument.

Authors:  David A Cook
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 3.853

4.  Reporting Guidelines for Health Care Simulation Research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE Statements.

Authors:  Adam Cheng; David Kessler; Ralph Mackinnon; Todd P Chang; Vinay M Nadkarni; Elizabeth A Hunt; Jordan Duval-Arnould; Yiqun Lin; David A Cook; Martin Pusic; Joshua Hui; David Moher; Matthias Egger; Marc Auerbach
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.929

5.  Setting mastery learning standards.

Authors:  Rachel Yudkowsky; Yoon Soo Park; Matthew Lineberry; Aaron Knox; E Matthew Ritter
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  Colonoscopy performance correlates with scores on the FES™ manual skills test.

Authors:  C L Mueller; P Kaneva; G M Fried; L S Feldman; M C Vassiliou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery: creation and validation of the hands-on test.

Authors:  Melina C Vassiliou; Brian J Dunkin; Gerald M Fried; John D Mellinger; Thadeus Trus; Pepa Kaneva; Calvin Lyons; James R Korndorffer; Michael Ujiki; Vic Velanovich; Michael L Kochman; Shawn Tsuda; Jose Martinez; Daniel J Scott; Gary Korus; Adrian Park; Jeffrey M Marks
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Reporting standards for research in psychology: why do we need them? What might they be?

Authors: 
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2008-12

9.  Consequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments.

Authors:  David A Cook; Matthew Lineberry
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 6.893

10.  On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha.

Authors:  Klaas Sijtsma
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.500

View more
  1 in total

1.  Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam.

Authors:  E Matthew Ritter; Matthew Lineberry; Daniel A Hashimoto; Denise Gee; Angela A Guzzetta; Daniel J Scott; Aimee K Gardner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 4.584

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.