Stephanie Cheon1, Cornelis de Jager2, Rylan Egan3, Mark Bona2, Christine Law4. 1. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.; Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. 3. Office of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont.. Electronic address: christine.law@queensu.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of ophthalmology residents' self-assessment and peer assessment of surgical skills in a simulation setting. DESIGN: Simulation laboratory assessment. PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmology residents novice to cataract surgery. METHODS: A modified International Council of Ophthalmology's Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric: Phacoemulsification structured assessment tool for simulated cataract surgery was established by conventional Delphi method. Residents completed 10 independent simulated surgeries that were video-recorded. Two experts graded the videos using the assessment tool. Participants performed self-assessment of their own 10 videos, and peer assessment of 10 of their peers' videos. RESULTS: Nine cataract surgery experts provided feedback and modifications for the assessment tool. Agreement for the first round of the Delphi method ranged from 55.56% to 100%. Second round agreement was 80% or greater for all answers. The final assessment tool comprised (i) 4 procedural items scored from 0 (not performed) to 7 (competent), and (ii) a global rating scale (GRS) requiring yes/no answers to 4 performance-related questions. Eight residents participated in the study. There was excellent expert inter-rater reliability intraclass correlation ((ICC) = 0.844, 0.875, 0.809, 0.844) and fair to excellent inter-rater reliability between expert and peer scores (ICC = 0.702, 0.831, 0.521, 0.423), but systematic disagreement (ICC = -0.428, -0.038) or poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.298, 0.362) between expert and self-scores. There was poor agreement for all GRS questions (κ statistic < 0.40) except 2 comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In the simulation setting, experts were able to reliably assess trainees' performance using the assessment tool. Participants demonstrated inconsistency in assessing their own skills; however, they were adequate at assessing their peers' overall performance.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of ophthalmology residents' self-assessment and peer assessment of surgical skills in a simulation setting. DESIGN: Simulation laboratory assessment. PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmology residents novice to cataract surgery. METHODS: A modified International Council of Ophthalmology's Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric: Phacoemulsification structured assessment tool for simulated cataract surgery was established by conventional Delphi method. Residents completed 10 independent simulated surgeries that were video-recorded. Two experts graded the videos using the assessment tool. Participants performed self-assessment of their own 10 videos, and peer assessment of 10 of their peers' videos. RESULTS: Nine cataract surgery experts provided feedback and modifications for the assessment tool. Agreement for the first round of the Delphi method ranged from 55.56% to 100%. Second round agreement was 80% or greater for all answers. The final assessment tool comprised (i) 4 procedural items scored from 0 (not performed) to 7 (competent), and (ii) a global rating scale (GRS) requiring yes/no answers to 4 performance-related questions. Eight residents participated in the study. There was excellent expert inter-rater reliability intraclass correlation ((ICC) = 0.844, 0.875, 0.809, 0.844) and fair to excellent inter-rater reliability between expert and peer scores (ICC = 0.702, 0.831, 0.521, 0.423), but systematic disagreement (ICC = -0.428, -0.038) or poor inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.298, 0.362) between expert and self-scores. There was poor agreement for all GRS questions (κ statistic < 0.40) except 2 comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In the simulation setting, experts were able to reliably assess trainees' performance using the assessment tool. Participants demonstrated inconsistency in assessing their own skills; however, they were adequate at assessing their peers' overall performance.
Authors: Francesca Palmisani; Patrick Sezen; Elisabeth Haag; Martin L Metzelder; Wilfried Krois Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.569