0
Original Article | ONLINE FIRST

Blinded Evaluation of Interrater Reliability of an Operative Competency Assessment Tool for Direct Laryngoscopy and Rigid Bronchoscopy

Stacey L. Ishman, MD, MPH; James R. Benke, BS; Kaalan Erik Johnson, MD; Karen B. Zur, MD; Ian N. Jacobs, MD; Marc C. Thorne, MD, MPH; David J. Brown, MD; Sandra Y. Lin, MD; Nasir Bhatti, MD, MPH; Ellen S. Deutsch, MD
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(10):916-922. doi:10.1001/2013.jamaoto.115.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  To confirm interrater reliability using blinded evaluation of a skills-assessment instrument to assess the surgical performance of resident and fellow trainees performing pediatric direct laryngoscopy and rigid bronchoscopy in simulated models.

Design  Prospective, paired, blinded observational validation study.

Subjects  Paired observers from multiple institutions simultaneously evaluated residents and fellows who were performing surgery in an animal laboratory or using high-fidelity manikins. The evaluators had no previous affiliation with the residents and fellows and did not know their year of training.

Interventions  One- and 2-page versions of an objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) assessment instrument composed of global and a task-specific surgical items were used to evaluate surgical performance.

Results  Fifty-two evaluations were completed by 17 attending evaluators. The instrument agreement for the 2-page assessment was 71.4% when measured as a binary variable (ie, competent vs not competent) (κ = 0.38; P = .08). Evaluation as a continuous variable revealed a 42.9% percentage agreement (κ = 0.18; P = .14). The intraclass correlation was 0.53, considered substantial/good interrater reliability (69% reliable). For the 1-page instrument, agreement was 77.4% when measured as a binary variable (κ = 0.53, P = .0015). Agreement when evaluated as a continuous measure was 71.0% (κ = 0.54, P < .001). The intraclass correlation was 0.73, considered high interrater reliability (85% reliable).

Conclusions  The OSATS assessment instrument is an effective tool for evaluating surgical performance among trainees with acceptable interrater reliability in a simulator setting. Reliability was good for both the 1- and 2-page OSATS checklists, and both serve as excellent tools to provide immediate formative feedback on operational competency.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Grahic Jump Location

Figure 1. Page 1 of the 2-page direct laryngoscopy/rigid bronchoscopy objective structured assessment of technical skills tool showing the task-specific checklist. PGY indicates postgraduate year.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Grahic Jump Location

Figure 2. Page 2 of the 2-page direct laryngoscopy/rigid bronchoscopy objective structured assessment of technical skills tool showing the surgery global rating. PGY indicates postgraduate year.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Grahic Jump Location

Figure 3. Combined 1-page direct laryngoscopy/rigid bronchoscopy objective structured assessment of technical skills tool. N/A indicates not applicable; PGY, postgraduate year.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Grahic Jump Location

Figure 4. Interrater reliability of the 1- and 2-page direct laryngoscopy/rigid bronchoscopy objective structured assessment of technical skills tools.

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

References

Correspondence

CME
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
Jobs