Item-Level Scoring Profiles and Technical Domains in the Colorectal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification Examination

IF 1.1 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Suguru Hasegawa, Hiroya Kuroyanagi, Junichiro Kawamura, Yusuke Kinugasa, Kazutaka Obama, Yuko Kitagawa
{"title":"Item-Level Scoring Profiles and Technical Domains in the Colorectal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification Examination","authors":"Suguru Hasegawa,&nbsp;Hiroya Kuroyanagi,&nbsp;Junichiro Kawamura,&nbsp;Yusuke Kinugasa,&nbsp;Kazutaka Obama,&nbsp;Yuko Kitagawa","doi":"10.1111/ases.70389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>\n <span>Video-based assessment is increasingly used to evaluate operative performance, but pass–fail outcomes alone provide limited information on the technical components associated with the decision. This study aimed to clarify item-level scoring patterns and latent technical domains underlying pass–fail decisions in the colorectal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification examination.</span>\n </p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p><span>This secondary item-level analysis used the colorectal ESSQS examination dataset of the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery from 2020 to 2024. The final application-level pass–fail decision was the primary outcome, and each primary reviewer evaluation was the unit of analysis. Item scores were standardized as proportions of the version-specific maximum. Univariable logistic regression, multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects models, and exploratory factor analysis were performed</span>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>\n <span>A total of 1945 applications yielded 3890 reviewer-level observations, with a final pass rate of 33.2%. Items related to operative field exposure, cooperation with assistants, dissection-plane recognition, workflow planning, vascular control, and transection/anastomosis were most strongly associated with the outcome. Exploratory factor analysis identified seven clinically interpretable domains; operative field exposure and team coordination, dissection-plane recognition, vessel management and lymphadenectomy, and transection/anastomosis were most strongly associated with the final decision.</span>\n </p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p><span>Pass–fail decisions in the colorectal ESSQS examination were characterized by both general endoscopic competencies and colorectal procedure-specific technical components. Item- and domain-level</span> <span>analyses describe the internal structure of the rubric; application to individualized feedback would require improved inter-reviewer reliability and further validation, and the findings may inform reviewer calibration and refinement of video-based skill assessment.</span></p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47019,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ases.70389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Video-based assessment is increasingly used to evaluate operative performance, but pass–fail outcomes alone provide limited information on the technical components associated with the decision. This study aimed to clarify item-level scoring patterns and latent technical domains underlying pass–fail decisions in the colorectal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification examination.

Methods

This secondary item-level analysis used the colorectal ESSQS examination dataset of the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery from 2020 to 2024. The final application-level pass–fail decision was the primary outcome, and each primary reviewer evaluation was the unit of analysis. Item scores were standardized as proportions of the version-specific maximum. Univariable logistic regression, multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects models, and exploratory factor analysis were performed.

Results

A total of 1945 applications yielded 3890 reviewer-level observations, with a final pass rate of 33.2%. Items related to operative field exposure, cooperation with assistants, dissection-plane recognition, workflow planning, vascular control, and transection/anastomosis were most strongly associated with the outcome. Exploratory factor analysis identified seven clinically interpretable domains; operative field exposure and team coordination, dissection-plane recognition, vessel management and lymphadenectomy, and transection/anastomosis were most strongly associated with the final decision.

Conclusions

Pass–fail decisions in the colorectal ESSQS examination were characterized by both general endoscopic competencies and colorectal procedure-specific technical components. Item- and domain-level analyses describe the internal structure of the rubric; application to individualized feedback would require improved inter-reviewer reliability and further validation, and the findings may inform reviewer calibration and refinement of video-based skill assessment.

结直肠内窥镜手术技能资格考试项目级评分概况和技术领域
基于视频的评估越来越多地用于评估手术表现,但仅通过或不通过的结果仅提供与决策相关的技术组件的有限信息。本研究旨在澄清项目级评分模式和潜在的技术领域,这些技术领域是结肠内镜手术技能资格考试中通过或不通过决策的基础。方法采用日本内镜外科学会2020 - 2024年结直肠ESSQS检查数据集进行二级项目水平分析。最终的应用程序级通过或不通过的决定是主要的结果,每个主要的审阅者评估是分析的单元。项目得分被标准化为特定版本最大值的比例。采用单变量logistic回归、多变量广义线性混合效应模型和探索性因子分析。结果1945份申请共产生3890个评审级观察值,最终通过率为33.2%。与手术视野暴露、与助手的配合、解剖平面识别、工作流程规划、血管控制和横断/吻合相关的项目与预后最密切相关。探索性因素分析确定了7个临床可解释的域;手术野暴露和团队协调、解剖平面识别、血管管理和淋巴结切除术以及横断/吻合与最终决定最密切相关。结论:结直肠ESSQS检查的合格与否取决于一般内镜检查能力和结直肠手术特定技术成分。项目级和领域级分析描述了分类的内部结构;应用个性化反馈需要提高审稿人之间的可靠性和进一步的验证,研究结果可以为审稿人校准和改进基于视频的技能评估提供信息。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
129
×
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
小红书