Development and validation of two bronchoscopy knowledge assessments.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Respiration Pub Date : 2025-06-12 DOI:10.1159/000546873
Eveline C F Gerretsen, Herman E Popeijus, Jouke T Annema, Paul F Clementsen, Lorenzo Corbetta, Daniela Gompelmann, Erik H F M van der Heijden, Birgitta I Hiddinga, Walther N K A van Mook, Mohammed Munavvar, Frank W J M Smeenk, Marleen Groenier
{"title":"Development and validation of two bronchoscopy knowledge assessments.","authors":"Eveline C F Gerretsen, Herman E Popeijus, Jouke T Annema, Paul F Clementsen, Lorenzo Corbetta, Daniela Gompelmann, Erik H F M van der Heijden, Birgitta I Hiddinga, Walther N K A van Mook, Mohammed Munavvar, Frank W J M Smeenk, Marleen Groenier","doi":"10.1159/000546873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation-based training (SBT) is a key method for teaching bronchoscopy skills to pulmonology residents. A theoretical foundation can enhance SBT efficiency. This study developed and evaluated the validity of an anatomy and theoretical bronchoscopy exam using Kane's validity framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>19 anatomy and 58 theoretical exam questions, developed by pulmonology experts, were assessed through two Delphi rounds. Both exams were then taken by 53 prepared pulmonology residents. The theoretical exam was also taken by three unprepared groups: novices, intermediates and experts. Using the residents' data, scoring evidence for the theoretical exam was evaluated using item difficulty and item discrimination indices, and generalization evidence was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Extrapolation evidence was obtained by comparing theoretical exam scores across the different groups. Implications evidence for both exams was gathered by evaluating residents' preparedness, based on exam performance and instructor feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Delphi procedure resulted in 19 anatomy and 31 theoretical questions. Item difficulty values predominantly ranged from 0.85-1.0, item discrimination indices mostly ranged from 0.0-0.25. Cronbach's alpha was 0.55. While scores appeared to correlate with experience, no significant differences were observed between the four groups. Most residents passed both exams on their first attempt, and instructors rated their anatomical knowledge as good.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Expert involvement and acceptable item difficulty, item discrimination and internal consistency supported the exams' validity. The exams also effectively motivated residents to prepare for SBT. These findings highlight the value of pre-SBT exams in enhancing residents' preparation, allowing more time to focus on mastering procedural skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":21048,"journal":{"name":"Respiration","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546873","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Simulation-based training (SBT) is a key method for teaching bronchoscopy skills to pulmonology residents. A theoretical foundation can enhance SBT efficiency. This study developed and evaluated the validity of an anatomy and theoretical bronchoscopy exam using Kane's validity framework.

Methods: 19 anatomy and 58 theoretical exam questions, developed by pulmonology experts, were assessed through two Delphi rounds. Both exams were then taken by 53 prepared pulmonology residents. The theoretical exam was also taken by three unprepared groups: novices, intermediates and experts. Using the residents' data, scoring evidence for the theoretical exam was evaluated using item difficulty and item discrimination indices, and generalization evidence was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Extrapolation evidence was obtained by comparing theoretical exam scores across the different groups. Implications evidence for both exams was gathered by evaluating residents' preparedness, based on exam performance and instructor feedback.

Results: The Delphi procedure resulted in 19 anatomy and 31 theoretical questions. Item difficulty values predominantly ranged from 0.85-1.0, item discrimination indices mostly ranged from 0.0-0.25. Cronbach's alpha was 0.55. While scores appeared to correlate with experience, no significant differences were observed between the four groups. Most residents passed both exams on their first attempt, and instructors rated their anatomical knowledge as good.

Conclusion: Expert involvement and acceptable item difficulty, item discrimination and internal consistency supported the exams' validity. The exams also effectively motivated residents to prepare for SBT. These findings highlight the value of pre-SBT exams in enhancing residents' preparation, allowing more time to focus on mastering procedural skills.

两种支气管镜知识评估的发展和验证。
基于模拟的训练(SBT)是向肺科住院医师教授支气管镜检查技能的关键方法。理论基础可以提高SBT效率。本研究利用凯恩的效度框架开发并评估了解剖学和理论支气管镜检查的效度。方法:采用两轮德尔菲法对肺科专家编制的19道解剖题和58道理论题进行评估。53名准备好的肺科住院医师参加了这两项检查。理论考试也由三个没有准备的群体参加:新手、中级和专家。采用居民资料,采用项目难度指数和项目辨别指数评价理论考试的得分证据,采用Cronbach’s alpha评价泛化证据。外推证据是通过比较不同组的理论考试成绩获得的。根据考试表现和教师反馈,通过评估住院医师的准备情况来收集两种考试的意义证据。结果:德尔菲程序产生19个解剖问题和31个理论问题。项目难度值主要在0.85-1.0之间,项目辨别指数主要在0.0-0.25之间。Cronbach’s alpha为0.55。虽然得分似乎与经验有关,但在四组之间没有观察到显著差异。大多数住院医生在第一次尝试时就通过了这两门考试,教练对他们的解剖学知识评价为良好。结论:专家参与、可接受的项目难度、项目辨别力和内部一致性支持测验的效度。这些考试也有效地激励了居民准备SBT。这些发现突出了sbt前考试在加强住院医生准备方面的价值,使他们有更多的时间专注于掌握程序技能。
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
Respiration
Respiration 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.40%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Respiration'' brings together the results of both clinical and experimental investigations on all aspects of the respiratory system in health and disease. Clinical improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chest and lung diseases are covered, as are the latest findings in physiology, biochemistry, pathology, immunology and pharmacology. The journal includes classic features such as editorials that accompany original articles in clinical and basic science research, reviews and letters to the editor. Further sections are: Technical Notes, The Eye Catcher, What’s Your Diagnosis?, The Opinion Corner, New Drugs in Respiratory Medicine, New Insights from Clinical Practice and Guidelines. ''Respiration'' is the official journal of the Swiss Society for Pneumology (SGP) and also home to the European Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP), which occupies a dedicated section on Interventional Pulmonology in the journal. This modern mix of different features and a stringent peer-review process by a dedicated editorial board make ''Respiration'' a complete guide to progress in thoracic medicine.
×
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