Self-assessment in laparoscopic surgical skills training

Is it reliable?

Journal Article (2017)
Author(s)

Sandeep Ganni (Catharina Hospital, TU Delft - Human Factors, GSL Medical College)

Magdalena K. Chmarra (TU Delft - Human Factors)

R. H.M. Goossens (TU Delft - Industrial Design)

J.J. Jakimowicz (TU Delft - Human Factors, Catharina Hospital)

Research Group
Human Factors
Copyright
© 2017 S. Ganni, M.K. Chmarra, R.H.M. Goossens, J.J. Jakimowicz
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5246-6
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2017
Language
English
Copyright
© 2017 S. Ganni, M.K. Chmarra, R.H.M. Goossens, J.J. Jakimowicz
Related content
Research Group
Human Factors
Issue number
6
Volume number
31
Pages (from-to)
2451-2456
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Background: The concept of self-assessment has been widely acclaimed for its role in the professional development cycle and self-regulation. In the field of medical education, self-assessment has been most used to evaluate the cognitive knowledge of students. The complexity of training and evaluation in laparoscopic surgery has previously acted as a barrier in determining the benefits self-assessment has to offer in comparison with other fields of medical education. Methods: Thirty-five surgical residents who attended the 2-day Laparoscopic Surgical Skills Grade 1 Level 1 curriculum were invited to participate from The Netherlands, India and Romania. The competency assessment tool (CAT) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy was used for self- and expert-assessment and the resulting distributions assessed. Results: A comparison between the expert- and self-assessed aggregates of scores from the CAT agreed with previous studies. Uniquely to this study, the aggregates of individual sub-categories—‘use of instruments’; ‘tissue handling’; and errors ‘within the component tasks’ and the ‘end product’ from both self- and expert-assessments—were investigated. There was strong positive correlation (rs > 0.5; p < 0.001) between the expert- and self-assessment in all categories with only the ‘tissue handling’ having a weaker correlation (rs = 0.3; p = 0.04). The distribution of the mean of the differences between self-assessment and expert-assessment suggested no significant difference between the scores of experts and the residents in all categories except the ‘end product’ evaluation where the difference was significant (W = 119, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Self-assessment using the CAT form gives results that are consistently not different from expert-assessment when assessing one’s proficiency in surgical skills. Areas where there was less agreement could be explained by variations in the level of training and understanding of the assessment criteria.