Validation for a scoring system of the ALS cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest)

Napier, Fiona; Davies, Robin P.; Baldock, Catherine; Stevens, Harry; Lockey, Andrew; Bullock, Ian; Perkins, Gavin D.

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.04.043

Cited by 39 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, neither candidate specialty nor site of work showed a significant association with candidate success or failure in our population, which suggests that professional background is less important for ALS course success than specific pre-course preparation as measured by the pre-course MCQ. Our results are in accordance with those of Napier et al [8] who documented no differences in CASTest pass rates between professions in UK ALS course candidates.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Which factors predict candidate outcome in advanced life support courses? A preliminary observational study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo identify factors associated with candidate outcome in the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) advanced life support (ALS) provider courses.MethodsMedical doctors participating as candidates to consecutive ALS courses organised by an ERC training centre in Italy were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. The association between the ALS course outcome and candidate demographics, professional background and pre-course knowledge measured by using the pre-course multiple choice quiz (MCQ) was investigated by using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 283 candidates, median age 31 years, were evaluated. Among them, 269 (95.1%) passed the final evaluation and 14 (4.9%) failed. Candidates who passed were younger (median age 31 vs. 37.5 years; p = 0.006) and attained a higher pre-course MCQ score (median 84 vs. 72.5%; p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, a higher pre-course MCQ score (OR 1.18 [95%CI 1.09–1.28]) and a basic life support (BLS) certification (OR 5.00 [95%CI 1.12–22.42]) were independent predictors of candidate success, while older age was associated with a significantly higher risk of failing (OR 0.90 [95%CI 0.83–0.97]). Female candidates had higher pass rates (97.2 vs. 91.2%; p = 0.048); however, after correction for confounders gender was not significantly associated with candidate outcome. Neither candidate specialty nor site of work was a predictor of candidate success.ConclusionsOn ALS courses, younger age and a higher level of specific pre-course knowledge, as measured by both the pre-course MCQ and the presence of BLS certification, are the most important predictors of success. Candidate gender and professional background did not show a significant correlation with course outcome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Which factors predict candidate outcome in advanced life support courses? A preliminary observational study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four observational studies (LOE P4) [176][177][178][179] did not support the ability of a written test to predict clinical skill performance in an advanced life support course. Twelve LOE P5 studies [180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] supported using written tests as a predictor of nonresuscitation clinical skills, with variable levels of correlation ranging from 0.19 to 0.65.…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 97%

Part 12: Education, implementation, and teams

Mancini¹,

Soar²,

Bhanji³

et al. 2010

Resuscitation

Self Cite

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The majority of the questions focused on the application of learning, but performance on a test does not necessarily transfer to performance in the clinical setting. While there is limited research that suggests that written tests may not predict resuscitation performance in a simulated environment for adult resuscitation courses, 21,22 the general medical education literature suggests that written tests can predict performance in an objective structured clinical exam 23,24 and that written tests may predict actual performance in the clinical environment as well as a multiple station examination. 25 Nonetheless, studies evaluating the TPP and RPP methods against performance based measures should be pursued in the future.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Retrospective Pre–Post: A Practical Method to Evaluate Learning from an Educational Program

Bhanji

Gottesman

Grave

et al. 2012

Academic Emergency Medicine

157

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Program evaluation remains a critical but underutilized step in medical education. This study compared traditional and retrospective pre-post self-assessment methods to objective learning measures to assess which correlated better to actual learning.Methods: Forty-seven medical students participated in a 4-hour pediatric resuscitation course. They completed pre and post self-assessments on pediatric resuscitation and two distracter topics. Postcourse, students also retrospectively rated their understanding as it was precourse (the ''retrospective pre'' instrument). Changes in traditional and retrospective pre-to postcourse self-assessment measures were compared to an objectives-based multiple-choice exam.Results: The traditional pre to post self-assessment means showed an increase from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001); the retrospective pre to post scores also increased from 1.9 of 5 to 3.7 of 5 (p < 0.001). Although the group means were the same, individual participants demonstrated a response shift by either increasing or decreasing their traditional pre to retrospective pre scores. Scores on the 22-item objective multiple choice test also increased, from a median score of 13.0 to 18.0 (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between the change in self-assessments and objective measures as demonstrated by a Spearman correlation of )0.02 and )0.13 for the traditional and retrospective pre-post methods, respectively. Students reported fewer changes on the two distracters using the retrospective pre-post versus the traditional method (11 vs. 29).Conclusions: Students were able to accurately identify, but not quantify, learning using either traditional or retrospective pre-post ''self-assessment'' measures. Retrospective pre-post self-assessment was more accurate in excluding perceived change in understanding of subject matter that was not taught.

show abstract

Validation for a scoring system of the ALS cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest)

Cited by 39 publications

References 11 publications

Which factors predict candidate outcome in advanced life support courses? A preliminary observational study

Which factors predict candidate outcome in advanced life support courses? A preliminary observational study

Part 12: Education, implementation, and teams

The Retrospective Pre–Post: A Practical Method to Evaluate Learning from an Educational Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About