Validity evidence for simulator-based obstetric ultrasound competency assessment tool: a multi-center study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
Ultraschall in Der Medizin Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1055/a-2122-6746
Yongfeng Zhao, Ping Zhou, Wenhui Zhu, Jidong Xiao, Wengang Liu, Yingchun Luo, Junhui Zhang, Lan Yang, Yan Xu, Xiaohong Tang
{"title":"Validity evidence for simulator-based obstetric ultrasound competency assessment tool: a multi-center study.","authors":"Yongfeng Zhao, Ping Zhou, Wenhui Zhu, Jidong Xiao, Wengang Liu, Yingchun Luo, Junhui Zhang, Lan Yang, Yan Xu, Xiaohong Tang","doi":"10.1055/a-2122-6746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To collect validity evidence for a simulator-based obstetric ultrasound competency assessment tool (OUCAT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>89 sonographers from three centers (XY, MC, DT), including novices (n=21), experienced trainees (n=44), and experts (n=24), participated in the competency assessment. Validity evidence of OUCAT was collected according to Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Content validity was ensured by reviewing guidelines and reaching expert consensus. The response process was ensured via training raters. Internal structure was explored through internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Relations to other variables were explored by comparing OUCAT scores of sonographers with different experience. Evidence for consequences was collected by determining the pass/fail level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>OUCAT included 123 items, of which 117 items could effectively distinguish novices from experts (P<0.05). The internal consistency was represented by the Cronbach's α coefficient (0.978). The inter-rater reliability was high, with XY being 0.868, MC being 0.877, and DT being 0.937 (P<0.001). Test-retest reliability was 0.732 (P=0.001). The performance of experts was significantly better than experienced trainees, and the performance of experienced trainees was significantly better than novices (70.3±10.7 vs. 39.8±15.0 vs. 20.5±10.6, P<0.001). The pass/fail level determined by contrast group method was 45 points. The passing rate of novices, experienced trainees and experts was 0% (0/21), 31.8% (14/44), and 100% (24/24), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simulator-based OUCAT exhibits good reliability and validity in assessing obstetric ultrasound skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":49400,"journal":{"name":"Ultraschall in Der Medizin","volume":" ","pages":"168-175"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultraschall in Der Medizin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2122-6746","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To collect validity evidence for a simulator-based obstetric ultrasound competency assessment tool (OUCAT).

Methods: 89 sonographers from three centers (XY, MC, DT), including novices (n=21), experienced trainees (n=44), and experts (n=24), participated in the competency assessment. Validity evidence of OUCAT was collected according to Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Content validity was ensured by reviewing guidelines and reaching expert consensus. The response process was ensured via training raters. Internal structure was explored through internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Relations to other variables were explored by comparing OUCAT scores of sonographers with different experience. Evidence for consequences was collected by determining the pass/fail level.

Results: OUCAT included 123 items, of which 117 items could effectively distinguish novices from experts (P<0.05). The internal consistency was represented by the Cronbach's α coefficient (0.978). The inter-rater reliability was high, with XY being 0.868, MC being 0.877, and DT being 0.937 (P<0.001). Test-retest reliability was 0.732 (P=0.001). The performance of experts was significantly better than experienced trainees, and the performance of experienced trainees was significantly better than novices (70.3±10.7 vs. 39.8±15.0 vs. 20.5±10.6, P<0.001). The pass/fail level determined by contrast group method was 45 points. The passing rate of novices, experienced trainees and experts was 0% (0/21), 31.8% (14/44), and 100% (24/24), respectively.

Conclusion: Simulator-based OUCAT exhibits good reliability and validity in assessing obstetric ultrasound skills.

基于模拟器的产科超声能力评估工具的有效性证据:一项多中心研究。
目的:为基于模拟器的产科超声能力评估工具(OUCAT)收集有效性证据。方法:来自XY、MC、DT三个中心的89名超声医师,包括新手(n=21)、有经验的受训人员(n=44)和专家(n=24),参与了能力评估。OUCAT的有效性依据《教育与心理测试标准》进行收集。通过审查准则和达成专家共识,确保了内容的有效性。通过培训评分员确保了响应过程。内部结构通过内部一致性、评分者间信度和重测信度进行了探索。通过比较具有不同经验的超声医师的OUCAT评分来探讨与其他变量的关系。通过确定合格/不合格等级来收集后果证据。结果:OUCAT包括123个项目,其中117个项目能够有效区分新手和专家(结论:基于模拟器的OUCAT在评估产科超声技能方面具有良好的信度和有效性。
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
Ultraschall in Der Medizin
Ultraschall in Der Medizin 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
228
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultraschall in der Medizin / European Journal of Ultrasound publishes scientific papers and contributions from a variety of disciplines on the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of ultrasound with an emphasis on clinical application. Technical papers with a physiological theme as well as the interaction between ultrasound and biological systems might also occasionally be considered for peer review and publication, provided that the translational relevance is high and the link with clinical applications is tight. The editors and the publishers reserve the right to publish selected articles online only. Authors are welcome to submit supplementary video material. Letters and comments are also accepted, promoting a vivid exchange of opinions and scientific discussions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信