We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Structured assessment of minor surgical skills (SAMSS) for family medicine residents.
Academic Medicine 2001 December
PURPOSE: To develop a valid and reliable examination to assess the technical proficiency of family medicine residents' performance of minor surgical office procedures.
METHOD: A multi-station OSCE-style examination using bench-model simulations of minor surgical procedures was developed. Participants were a randomly selected group of 33 family medicine residents (PGY-1 = 16, PGY-2 = 17) and 14 senior surgical residents who functioned as a validation group. Examiners were qualified surgeons and family physicians who used both checklists and global rating scales to score the participants' performances.
RESULTS: When family medicine residents were evaluated by family physicians, interstation reliabilities were .29 for checklists and .42 for global ratings. When family medicine residents were evaluated by surgeons, the reliabilities were .53 for checklists and .75 for global ratings. Interrater reliability, measured as a correlation for total examination scores, was .97. Mean scores on the examination were 60%, 64%, and 87% for PGY-1 family medicine, PGY-2 family medicine, and surgery residents, respectively. The difference in scores between family medicine and surgery residents was significant (p < .001), providing evidence of construct validity.
CONCLUSION: A new examination developed for assessing family medicine residents' skills with minor surgical office procedures is reliable and has evidence for construct validity. The examination has low reliability when family physicians serve as examiners, but moderate reliability when surgeons are the evaluators.
METHOD: A multi-station OSCE-style examination using bench-model simulations of minor surgical procedures was developed. Participants were a randomly selected group of 33 family medicine residents (PGY-1 = 16, PGY-2 = 17) and 14 senior surgical residents who functioned as a validation group. Examiners were qualified surgeons and family physicians who used both checklists and global rating scales to score the participants' performances.
RESULTS: When family medicine residents were evaluated by family physicians, interstation reliabilities were .29 for checklists and .42 for global ratings. When family medicine residents were evaluated by surgeons, the reliabilities were .53 for checklists and .75 for global ratings. Interrater reliability, measured as a correlation for total examination scores, was .97. Mean scores on the examination were 60%, 64%, and 87% for PGY-1 family medicine, PGY-2 family medicine, and surgery residents, respectively. The difference in scores between family medicine and surgery residents was significant (p < .001), providing evidence of construct validity.
CONCLUSION: A new examination developed for assessing family medicine residents' skills with minor surgical office procedures is reliable and has evidence for construct validity. The examination has low reliability when family physicians serve as examiners, but moderate reliability when surgeons are the evaluators.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app