z-logo
Premium
Implementing assessments of robot‐assisted technical skill in urological education: a systematic review and synthesis of the validity evidence
Author(s) -
Goldenberg Mitchell G.,
Lee Jason Y.,
Kwong Jethro C.C.,
Grantcharov Teodor P.,
Costello Anthony
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.14219
Subject(s) - psycinfo , crowdsourcing , medline , psychometrics , educational measurement , computer science , rating scale , medical education , psychology , applied psychology , data science , medicine , clinical psychology , world wide web , developmental psychology , political science , law
Objectives To systematically review and synthesise the validity evidence supporting intraoperative and simulation‐based assessments of technical skill in urological robot‐assisted surgery ( RAS ), and make evidence‐based recommendations for the implementation of these assessments in urological training. Materials and Methods A literature search of the Medline, Psyc INFO and Embase databases was performed. Articles using technical skill and simulation‐based assessments in RAS were abstracted. Only studies involving urology trainees or faculty were included in the final analysis. Results Multiple tools for the assessment of technical robotic skill have been published, with mixed sources of validity evidence to support their use. These evaluations have been used in both the ex vivo and in vivo settings. Performance evaluations range from global rating scales to psychometrics, and assessments are carried out through automation, expert analysts, and crowdsourcing. Conclusion There have been rapid expansions in approaches to RAS technical skills assessment, both in simulated and clinical settings. Alternative approaches to assessment in RAS , such as crowdsourcing and psychometrics, remain under investigation. Evidence to support the use of these metrics in high‐stakes decisions is likely insufficient at present.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here