Literature DB >> 33382848

Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) in simulation-based medical education: Translation and validation of the German version.

Sandra Abegglen1, Andrea Krieg2, Helen Eigenmann1, Robert Greif2,3.   

Abstract

Debriefing is essential for effective learning during simulation-based medical education. To assess the quality of debriefings, reliable and validated tools are necessary. One widely used validated tool is the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD), which was originally developed in English. The aim of this study was to translate the OSAD into German, and to evaluate the reliability and validity of this German version (G-OSAD) according the 'Standards of Educational and Psychological Measurement'. In Phase 1, the validity evidence based on content was established by a multistage cross-cultural adaptation translation of the original English OSAD. Additionally, we collected expert input on the adequacy of the content of the G-OSAD to measure debriefing quality. In Phase 2, three trained raters assessed 57 video recorded debriefings to gather validity evidence based on internal structure. Interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and composite reliability were examined. Finally, we assessed the internal structure by applying confirmatory factorial analysis. The expert input supported the adequacy of the content of the G-OSAD to measure debriefing quality. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent for the average ratings (three raters: ICC = 0.848; two raters: ICC = 0.790), and good for the single rater (ICC = 0.650). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.976), internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.865), and composite reliability was excellent (ω = 0.93). Factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the G-OSAD, which indicates that these G-OSAD ratings measure debriefing quality as intended. The G-OSAD shows good psychometric qualities to assess debriefing quality, which are comparable to the original OSAD. Thus, this G-OSAD is a tool that has the potential to optimise the quality of debriefings in German-speaking countries.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33382848      PMCID: PMC7774931          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244816

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  24 in total

1.  SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and velicer's MAP test.

Authors:  B P O'Connor
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2000-08

Review 2.  Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence.

Authors:  William C McGaghie; S Barry Issenberg; Elaine R Cohen; Jeffrey H Barsuk; Diane B Wayne
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  A RATIONALE AND TEST FOR THE NUMBER OF FACTORS IN FACTOR ANALYSIS.

Authors:  J L HORN
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 2.500

Review 4.  The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning.

Authors:  Ruth M Fanning; David M Gaba
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.929

5.  There's no such thing as "nonjudgmental" debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment.

Authors:  Jenny W Rudolph; Robert Simon; Ronald L Dufresne; Daniel B Raemer
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.929

Review 6.  A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education.

Authors:  Tracy Levett-Jones; Samuel Lapkin
Journal:  Nurse Educ Today       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 3.442

7.  Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Scott I Tannenbaum; Christopher P Cerasoli
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 8.  Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Adam Cheng; Walter Eppich; Vincent Grant; Jonathan Sherbino; Benjamin Zendejas; David A Cook
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.251

9.  Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative.

Authors:  Amitai Ziv; Paul Root Wolpe; Stephen D Small; Shimon Glick
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.929

10.  The art and science of debriefing in simulation: Ideal and practice.

Authors:  Peter Dieckmann; Susanne Molin Friis; Anne Lippert; Doris Ostergaard
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.650

View more
  4 in total

1.  Designing a universal tool for developing content of debriefing: The how and what questions.

Authors:  Gunaseelan Rajendran; Sasikumar Mahalingam; Nithya Balaraman; Aswin Kumaran; Ezhilkugan Ganessane
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2022-04-01

2.  Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams.

Authors:  Andrew Coggins; Sun Song Hong; Kaushik Baliga; Louis P Halamek
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2022-03-07

3.  Pilot study of the DART tool - an objective healthcare simulation debriefing assessment instrument.

Authors:  Kaushik Baliga; Andrew Coggins; Sandra Warburton; Divya Mathias; Nicole K Yamada; Janene H Fuerch; Louis P Halamek
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 3.263

4.  PRE-scripted debriefing for Paediatric simulation Associated with Resuscitation EDucation (PREPARED): A multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter J Snelling; Louise Dodson; Emily Monteagle; Robert S Ware; Jason Acworth; Ben Symon; Ben Lawton
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2022-08-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.