Adrián Lugilde-López, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, Fernando A. Mikic-Fonte, Martín Llamas-Nistal
{"title":"Systematic review of subjective validation methods for computerized colonoscopy simulators","authors":"Adrián Lugilde-López, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, Fernando A. Mikic-Fonte, Martín Llamas-Nistal","doi":"10.1177/14604582241279692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In recent years, different approaches have been used to conduct a subjective assessment of colonoscopy simulators. The purpose of this paper is to review these different approaches, specifically the ones used for computerized simulators, as the first step for the design of a standard validation procedure for this type of simulators. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching papers after 2010 in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore databases. Papers were screened and reviewed for procedures regarding the subjective validation of computerized simulators for traditional colonoscopy with an endoscope. Results: An initial search in the databases identified 2094 papers, of which 7 remained after exhaustive review and application of exclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires for subjective validation, with “face” being the most common validity type tested, while “content” validity and “usability” were less prominent. Conclusions: A classification of subscales for testing face validity was derived from the studies. The Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire (CSRQ) was selected as the guide to follow for the development of future questionnaires related to subjective validation. Mislabeling of the validity tested in the studies due to ambiguous interpretations of the validity types was a common occurrence observed in the reviewed studies.","PeriodicalId":55069,"journal":{"name":"Health Informatics Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"14604582241279692"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Informatics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241279692","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, different approaches have been used to conduct a subjective assessment of colonoscopy simulators. The purpose of this paper is to review these different approaches, specifically the ones used for computerized simulators, as the first step for the design of a standard validation procedure for this type of simulators. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching papers after 2010 in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore databases. Papers were screened and reviewed for procedures regarding the subjective validation of computerized simulators for traditional colonoscopy with an endoscope. Results: An initial search in the databases identified 2094 papers, of which 7 remained after exhaustive review and application of exclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires for subjective validation, with “face” being the most common validity type tested, while “content” validity and “usability” were less prominent. Conclusions: A classification of subscales for testing face validity was derived from the studies. The Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire (CSRQ) was selected as the guide to follow for the development of future questionnaires related to subjective validation. Mislabeling of the validity tested in the studies due to ambiguous interpretations of the validity types was a common occurrence observed in the reviewed studies.
期刊介绍:
Health Informatics Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal. All papers submitted to Health Informatics Journal are subject to peer review by members of a carefully appointed editorial board. The journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.