Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence

Author:

Khan Rishad1ORCID,Zheng Eric1,Wani Sachin B.2,Scaffidi Michael A.34ORCID,Jeyalingam Thurarshen15,Gimpaya Nikko4,Anderson John T.67ORCID,Grover Samir C.148,McCreath Graham9,Walsh Catharine M.591011ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA

3. Faculty of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

4. Division of Gastroenterology, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

5. The Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

6. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK

7. Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, UK

8. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

9. SickKids Research and Lerning Institutes, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada

10. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada

11. Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Abstract Background Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, being required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports the available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity. Methods We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until 8 April 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) from the five sources and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results From 10 841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 each assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1–15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5–11.5 (maximum score 14.5). Conclusions The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on the use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Gastroenterology

Cited by 22 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3