Cargando…
The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research
In recent years, surgical trainees have been exposed to a lower volume of operative procedures. In part, this is due to the reduction in working hours and further disruption by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Much has been done to develop the techniques of surgical skill training outside of t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36579220 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31881 |
_version_ | 1784859107273998336 |
---|---|
author | Hughes, Thomas Fennelly, Joseph T Patel, Rakesh Baxter, Jonathan |
author_facet | Hughes, Thomas Fennelly, Joseph T Patel, Rakesh Baxter, Jonathan |
author_sort | Hughes, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | In recent years, surgical trainees have been exposed to a lower volume of operative procedures. In part, this is due to the reduction in working hours and further disruption by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Much has been done to develop the techniques of surgical skill training outside of the operating theatre. Simulation-based interventions must undergo a process of validation to assess their appropriateness and effectiveness for use in training. The terminology of validation within current literature, however, has not evolved in line with the education community, resulting in varying definitions for the same phrase across domains. This can result in confusion and misinterpretation among researchers and surgeons working within this domain. This technical report describes the “types of validity” definitions used in the traditional framework of surgical simulation literature and the contemporary, unitary framework of validity adopted by educationalist theorists. There is a clear overlap between the traditional “types of validity” and the contemporary, unitary framework. The divergence in the use of those definitions seems, at least partly, influenced by the context of the investigations being conducted. By utilising the contemporary definitions, authors may have struggled to provide the evidence required to justify the use of the multitude of surgical skill simulators developed in the recent past. This report has provided an overview of the current terminology within the validation frameworks and can be used as a reference for future surgical simulation research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9790137 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97901372022-12-27 The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research Hughes, Thomas Fennelly, Joseph T Patel, Rakesh Baxter, Jonathan Cureus Medical Education In recent years, surgical trainees have been exposed to a lower volume of operative procedures. In part, this is due to the reduction in working hours and further disruption by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Much has been done to develop the techniques of surgical skill training outside of the operating theatre. Simulation-based interventions must undergo a process of validation to assess their appropriateness and effectiveness for use in training. The terminology of validation within current literature, however, has not evolved in line with the education community, resulting in varying definitions for the same phrase across domains. This can result in confusion and misinterpretation among researchers and surgeons working within this domain. This technical report describes the “types of validity” definitions used in the traditional framework of surgical simulation literature and the contemporary, unitary framework of validity adopted by educationalist theorists. There is a clear overlap between the traditional “types of validity” and the contemporary, unitary framework. The divergence in the use of those definitions seems, at least partly, influenced by the context of the investigations being conducted. By utilising the contemporary definitions, authors may have struggled to provide the evidence required to justify the use of the multitude of surgical skill simulators developed in the recent past. This report has provided an overview of the current terminology within the validation frameworks and can be used as a reference for future surgical simulation research. Cureus 2022-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9790137/ /pubmed/36579220 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31881 Text en Copyright © 2022, Hughes et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Medical Education Hughes, Thomas Fennelly, Joseph T Patel, Rakesh Baxter, Jonathan The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title | The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title_full | The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title_fullStr | The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title_full_unstemmed | The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title_short | The Validation of Surgical Simulators: A Technical Report on Current Validation Terminology as a Reference for Future Research |
title_sort | validation of surgical simulators: a technical report on current validation terminology as a reference for future research |
topic | Medical Education |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36579220 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31881 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hughesthomas thevalidationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT fennellyjosepht thevalidationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT patelrakesh thevalidationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT baxterjonathan thevalidationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT hughesthomas validationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT fennellyjosepht validationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT patelrakesh validationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch AT baxterjonathan validationofsurgicalsimulatorsatechnicalreportoncurrentvalidationterminologyasareferenceforfutureresearch |