Development and Validation of a Shave Biopsy Training Checklist.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Family Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-05 DOI:10.22454/FamMed.2025.615731
Alicia Ludden-Schlatter, Stephanie Bunt, Kate DuChene Hanrahan
{"title":"Development and Validation of a Shave Biopsy Training Checklist.","authors":"Alicia Ludden-Schlatter, Stephanie Bunt, Kate DuChene Hanrahan","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2025.615731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Residencies train residents in procedures and assess their competency, but existing assessment tools have demonstrated poor reliability and have not been validated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-methods study validated a shave biopsy checklist with family medicine and dermatology faculty at two academic centers. In each phase of the study, teaching faculty scored a video-recorded simulated procedure using the checklist, and investigators assessed content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In focus groups of nine family medicine and dermatology faculty, 16 of 18 checklist items met or surpassed 80% interrater reliability. Overall checklist reliability was 74%. Focus group surveys initially revealed insufficient content validity. Lowest performing items were removed, and then the follow-up content validity index (0.76) surpassed the required threshold (0.62). Twenty-one of 70 family medicine faculty completed a final survey, which showed a content validity index of 0.63, surpassing the required threshold of 0.42. Twelve of 70 family medicine faculty viewed and scored a simulated video-recorded procedure. Overall interrater reliability was 91% (Cohen's d=1.36). Fourteen of 16 checklist items demonstrated greater than or equal to 90% interrater reliability. Accuracy analysis revealed 67.9% correct responses in focus groups and 84.9% in final testing (simple t test, P&lt;.001, Cohen's d=1.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This rigorously validated checklist demonstrates appropriate content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy. Findings support use of this shave biopsy checklist as an objective mastery standard for medical education and as a tool for formative assessment of procedural competency.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":"57 4","pages":"268-275"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12147697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.615731","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Residencies train residents in procedures and assess their competency, but existing assessment tools have demonstrated poor reliability and have not been validated.

Methods: This mixed-methods study validated a shave biopsy checklist with family medicine and dermatology faculty at two academic centers. In each phase of the study, teaching faculty scored a video-recorded simulated procedure using the checklist, and investigators assessed content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy.

Results: In focus groups of nine family medicine and dermatology faculty, 16 of 18 checklist items met or surpassed 80% interrater reliability. Overall checklist reliability was 74%. Focus group surveys initially revealed insufficient content validity. Lowest performing items were removed, and then the follow-up content validity index (0.76) surpassed the required threshold (0.62). Twenty-one of 70 family medicine faculty completed a final survey, which showed a content validity index of 0.63, surpassing the required threshold of 0.42. Twelve of 70 family medicine faculty viewed and scored a simulated video-recorded procedure. Overall interrater reliability was 91% (Cohen's d=1.36). Fourteen of 16 checklist items demonstrated greater than or equal to 90% interrater reliability. Accuracy analysis revealed 67.9% correct responses in focus groups and 84.9% in final testing (simple t test, P<.001, Cohen's d=1.4).

Conclusions: This rigorously validated checklist demonstrates appropriate content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy. Findings support use of this shave biopsy checklist as an objective mastery standard for medical education and as a tool for formative assessment of procedural competency.

剃须活检培训清单的制定和验证。
背景和目的:住院医师培训住院医师的程序和评估他们的能力,但现有的评估工具已经证明可靠性差,尚未得到验证。方法:这项混合方法研究验证了两个学术中心的家庭医学和皮肤病学教员的剃须活检检查表。在研究的每个阶段,教师使用检查表对视频录制的模拟过程进行评分,调查人员评估内容的有效性,口译员的可靠性和准确性。结果:在9个家庭医学和皮肤病学专业的焦点小组中,18个检查表项目中有16个达到或超过80%的相互信度。检查表的总体信度为74%。焦点小组调查最初发现内容效度不足。剔除表现最差的项目,随访内容效度指数(0.76)超过要求的阈值(0.62)。70名家庭医学教师中有21名完成了最终调查,结果显示内容效度指数为0.63,超过了要求的阈值0.42。70名家庭医学教师中有12人观看了一段模拟的录像过程,并进行了评分。总体判读信度为91% (Cohen’s d=1.36)。16个清单项目中的14个显示大于或等于90%的互信度。准确度分析显示焦点小组的回答正确率为67.9%,最终测试的回答正确率为84.9%(简单t检验,P<;0.001, Cohen’s d=1.4)。结论:这个经过严格验证的检查表显示了适当的内容效度、判读者之间的信度和准确性。研究结果支持将刮胡子活检检查表作为医学教育的客观掌握标准和程序能力形成性评估的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信