Tiffany N Anderson1, Edmund W Lee2, Sylvia Bereknyei Merrell3, James R Korndorffer2. 1. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: tnanders@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford-Surgery Policy Improvement Research and Education Center (S-SPIRE), Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Survey-based studies are cornerstones in medical education research. The Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) listserv offers a method to contact program directors (PD) and residents for such research. To facilitate research beneficial to the APDS, improve the quality of survey-based research and minimize survey fatigue, the APDS research committee (ARC) developed a survey review process to grant access to the listserv for research. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the review process on the quality of survey-based research and eventual publication. DESIGN: This log was systematically reviewed identifying publications resulting from accepted surveys. Publications were categorically analyzed to determine the components of their survey tool methodology, response rate (RR), and medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) score. SETTING: The ARC used a 2-reviewer peer-review process for survey distribution requests. The request was either accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Accepted surveys were distributed through the listserv with an ARC attestation of approval. PARTICIPANTS: A log of all survey requests maintained from 2014 to 2017 and subsequent publications. RESULTS: Thirty-five requests were accepted (40%), 30 were reviewed discovering 10 surveys that led to 12 publications (publication rate of 33%). The average RR was 60% (SD = 29%). Detailed explanations of survey development strategies were reported in 5 (42%), consisting of methods building validity evidence such as expert consensus, modified Delphi method, and pilot group sampling. Half of study participants were PD (50%). MERSQI scores averaged 10 (SD = 1.6). CONCLUSION: Based on those survey research published to date, the ARC survey peer-review process has enabled most accepted surveys to achieve adequate RR. Although the pool of accepted requests is small, it does highlight areas of improvement. With further refinement of the process, including questioning the survey development methods, the process and listserv can be a powerful tool for further research.
OBJECTIVE: Survey-based studies are cornerstones in medical education research. The Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) listserv offers a method to contact program directors (PD) and residents for such research. To facilitate research beneficial to the APDS, improve the quality of survey-based research and minimize survey fatigue, the APDS research committee (ARC) developed a survey review process to grant access to the listserv for research. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the review process on the quality of survey-based research and eventual publication. DESIGN: This log was systematically reviewed identifying publications resulting from accepted surveys. Publications were categorically analyzed to determine the components of their survey tool methodology, response rate (RR), and medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) score. SETTING: The ARC used a 2-reviewer peer-review process for survey distribution requests. The request was either accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Accepted surveys were distributed through the listserv with an ARC attestation of approval. PARTICIPANTS: A log of all survey requests maintained from 2014 to 2017 and subsequent publications. RESULTS: Thirty-five requests were accepted (40%), 30 were reviewed discovering 10 surveys that led to 12 publications (publication rate of 33%). The average RR was 60% (SD = 29%). Detailed explanations of survey development strategies were reported in 5 (42%), consisting of methods building validity evidence such as expert consensus, modified Delphi method, and pilot group sampling. Half of study participants were PD (50%). MERSQI scores averaged 10 (SD = 1.6). CONCLUSION: Based on those survey research published to date, the ARC survey peer-review process has enabled most accepted surveys to achieve adequate RR. Although the pool of accepted requests is small, it does highlight areas of improvement. With further refinement of the process, including questioning the survey development methods, the process and listserv can be a powerful tool for further research.
Authors: Tiffany N Anderson; LaDonna E Kearse; Robert Shi; Aboubacar Kaba; Ingrid S Schmiederer; Elizabeth M Huffman; E M Ritter; James R Korndorffer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.584