Reliability and validity of an objective assessment instrument of laparoscopic skill

Mayooran, Zorana; Rombauts, Luk; Brown, Tamara L.; Tsaltas, Jim; Fraser, Kym; Healy, David

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.05.067

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine out of 13 (69.2%) procedure‐specific tool studies 31–33,42–44,46–50,60 showed construct or concurrent validity. Nine out of 11 (81.8%) APM showed construct or criterion validity 51–53,55,56,67,72,78–90 . None of the included studies reported on the association between intraoperative performance of practicing surgeons to clinical/postoperative outcomes of patients (predictive validity).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Content validity was demonstrated in 6 (54.5%) different APMs. 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 One APM study reported on consensus methodology to reach content validity. 56…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine out of 11 (81.8%) APM showed construct or criterion validity. 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 67 , 72 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 None of the included studies reported on the association between intraoperative performance of practicing surgeons to clinical/postoperative outcomes of patients (predictive validity).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

Tesfai,

Nagi,

Morrison

et al. 2024

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere is a growing emphasis on proficiency‐based progression within surgical training. To enable this, clearly defined metrics for those newly acquired surgical skills are needed. These can be formulated in objective assessment tools. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature reporting on available tools for objective assessment of minimally invasive gynecological surgery (simulated) performance and evaluate their reliability and validity.Material and methodsA systematic search (1989–2022) was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA. The trial was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ID: CRD42022376552. Randomized controlled trials, prospective comparative studies, prospective single‐group (with pre‐ and post‐training assessment) or consensus studies that reported on the development, validation or usage of assessment tools of surgical performance in minimally invasive gynecological surgery, were included. Three independent assessors assessed study setting and validity evidence according to a contemporary framework of validity, which was adapted from Messick's validity framework. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the modified medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) checklist. Heterogeneity in data reporting on types of tools, data collection, study design, definition of expertise (novice vs. experts) and statistical values prevented a meaningful meta‐analysis.ResultsA total of 19 746 titles and abstracts were screened of which 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 37 different assessment tools were identified of which 13 represented manual global assessment tools, 13 manual procedure‐specific assessment tools and 11 automated performance metrices. Only two tools showed substantive evidence of validity. Reliability and validity per tool were provided. No assessment tools showed direct correlation between tool scores and patient related outcomes.ConclusionsExisting objective assessment tools lack evidence on predicting patient outcomes and suffer from limitations in transferability outside of the research environment, particularly for automated performance metrics. Future research should prioritize filling these gaps while integrating advanced technologies like kinematic data and AI for robust, objective surgical skill assessment within gynecological advanced surgical training programs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Content validity was demonstrated in 6 (54.5%) different APMs. 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 One APM study reported on consensus methodology to reach content validity. 56…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

Tesfai,

Nagi,

Morrison

et al. 2024

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hiring an experienced laparoscopic surgeon who is interested in teaching other surgeons, in combination with surgeons who are interested in learning advanced laparoscopic procedures, has proven to be an effective method to implement advanced laparoscopic procedures into daily practice [ 108 ], [ 110 ]. Although not all surgeons are similarly skilled [ 111 ], personal efforts should be made by every surgeon who performs laparoscopy to continuously enhance personal laparoscopic skills, and thereby enhancing the safety of patients. As Walid recently mentioned: “Gynecologists need to improve their laparoscopic skills, as minimally invasive surgery is becoming the sine qua non of a modern surgeon” [ 112 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations by minimally invasive surgery? A review on myomectomy

Hirschelmann

2012

GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW; 1:Doc09; ISSN Not Yet Available

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotics in gynecologic surgery

Baiocchi,

Leitao

2025

Handbook of Robotic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability and validity of an objective assessment instrument of laparoscopic skill

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations by minimally invasive surgery? A review on myomectomy

Robotics in gynecologic surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About