Validation of MSAT: an instrument to measure medical students' self-assessed confidence in musculoskeletal examination skills

Vivekananda-Schmidt, Pirashanthie; Lewis, Martyn; Hassell, Andrew; Coady, David; Walker, David; Kay, Lesley; McLean, Monica; Haq, Inam; Rahman, Anisur

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2007.02712.x

Cited by 39 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine studies were identified that investigated and compared e-learning to traditional teaching methods. As outcome measures, one study looked at students' selfassessment of clinical abilities, 14 seven studies investigated learners' preparation for clinical procedures, 12,15,16,17,18,19 and two studies focused on students' performance in clinical skills. 20,21 These prospective randomized trials and pilot studies demonstrate that e-learning enhances knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction for preparation and performance in orthopedic skills.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-learning in orthopedic surgery training: A systematic review

Tarpada

Morris

Burton

2016

Journal of Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-learning in orthopedic surgery training: A systematic review

Tarpada

Morris

Burton

2016

Journal of Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A similar survey was completed by the faculty; however, they rated participant engagement and learning. The surveys were adapted, by an expert panel, from a previously published instrument validated for medical student self‐assessment and adapted to measure simulation tools and pretested on a small sample prior to commencing the trial. The surveys are available in Appendix S1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realism in paediatric emergency simulations: A prospective comparison of in situ, low fidelity and centre‐based, high fidelity scenarios

O’Leary

Pegiazoglou

McGarvey

et al. 2017

Emerg Medicine Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To measure scenario participant and faculty self-reported realism, engagement and learning for the low fidelity, in situ simulations and compare this to high fidelity, centre-based simulations. Methods: A prospective survey of scenario participants and faculty completing in situ and centre-based paediatric simulations.Results: There were 382 responses, 276 from scenario participants and 106 from faculty with 241 responses from in situ and 141 from centre-based simulations. Scenario participant responses showed significantly higher ratings for the centre-based simulations for respiratory rate (P = 0.007), pulse (P = 0.036), breath sounds (P = 0.002), heart sounds (P < 0.001) and patient noises (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in overall rating of the scenario reality by scenario participants in favour of the centre-based simulations (P = 0.005); however, there was no significant difference when rating participant engagement (P = 0.11) and participant learning (P = 0.77). With the centre-based scenarios, nurses rated the reality of the respiratory rate (P < 0.001), blood pressure (P = 0.016) and abdominal signs (P = 0.003) significantly higher than doctors. Nurses rated the overall reality higher than doctors for the centre simulations (96.8% vs 84.2% rated as realistic, P = 0.041), which was not demonstrated in the in situ scenarios (76.2% vs 73.5%, P = 0.65). Conclusion: Some aspects of in situ simulations may be less 'real' than centre-based simulations, but there was no significant difference in selfreported engagement or learning by scenario participants. Low fidelity, in situ simulation provides adequate realism for engagement and learning.

show abstract

“…[22–28] There are many possible techniques used in examining the MSK system, and a recent review by Moen et al reported that at least 109 specific maneuvers for the shoulder have been described. [29] Although some individual studies have reported sensitivity and specificity properties for these maneuvers that may seem reasonable, other studies have arrived at different results, and a recent Cochrane review has not found sufficient evidence to recommend any examination element, likely due to “extreme diversity” in techniques compared to the original descriptions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity evidence for two objective structured clinical examination stations to evaluate core skills of the shoulder and knee assessment

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe developed two objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to educate and evaluate trainees in the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Our objective was to examine the evidence for validity of these OSCEs.MethodsA multidisciplinary team of content experts developed checklists of exam maneuvers and criteria to guide rater observations. Content was proposed by faculty, supplemented by literature review, and finalized using a Delphi process. One faculty simulated the patient, another rated examinee performance. Two faculty independently rated a portion of cases. Percent agreement was calculated and Cohen’s kappa corrected for chance agreement on binary outcomes. Examinees’ self-assessment was explored by written surveys. Responses were stratified into 3 categories and compared with similarly stratified OSCE scores using Pearson’s coefficient.ResultsA multi-disciplinary cohort of 69 examinees participated. Examinees correctly identified rotator cuff and meniscal disease 88% and 89% of the time, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was moderate for the knee (87%; k = 0.61) and near perfect for the shoulder (97%; k = 0.88). No correlation between stratified self-assessment and OSCE scores were found for either shoulder (0.02) or knee (−0.07).ConclusionsValidity evidence supports the continuing use of these OSCEs in educational programs addressing the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Evidence for validity includes the systematic development of content, rigorous control of the response process, and demonstration of acceptable interrater agreement. Lack of correlation with self-assessment suggests that these OSCEs measure a construct different from learners’ self-confidence.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0850-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Validation of MSAT: an instrument to measure medical students' self-assessed confidence in musculoskeletal examination skills

Abstract: The MSAT has strong psychometric properties, thereby offering a valid approach to evaluating the self-assessment of confidence in examination skills by students. Confidence does not necessarily reflect competence; future research should clarify what underpins confidence.

Cited by 39 publications

References 27 publications

E-learning in orthopedic surgery training: A systematic review

E-learning in orthopedic surgery training: A systematic review

Realism in paediatric emergency simulations: A prospective comparison of in situ, low fidelity and centre‐based, high fidelity scenarios

Validity evidence for two objective structured clinical examination stations to evaluate core skills of the shoulder and knee assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About