Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRela, M
dc.contributor.authorPrice, T
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-17T15:35:04Z
dc.date.available2024-04-17T15:35:04Z
dc.date.issued2023-09
dc.identifier.issn0035-8843
dc.identifier.issn1478-7083
dc.identifier.urihttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/22286
dc.description.abstract

Introduction Surgical trainees at all stages are mandated to use workplace-based assessments (WBAs) to gain feedback from their trainers. Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) is a tool to assess hands-on surgical skills. This review of the literature seeks to ascertain how valid DOPS are as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees according to the American Psychology Association (APA) validity framework. Methods Relevant literature was identified through a structured search of Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, with further papers included on citation review. Following this, papers meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the final review specifying those investigating WBAs including DOPS, assessments in practice rather than simulation and specifically for postgraduate surgical trainees. Findings Sixteen papers were included in the final analysis. Extracted data from the returned papers were assessed for evidence of validity in each of the five domains on the APA framework: validity based on consequence, response process, reliability, content and relationship to other variables. There are studies that show good parameters for reliability and validity for specific DOPS used in endoscopy and otolaryngology. However, there is confusion over the purpose of DOPS among trainers and trainees as to whether they should be used formatively or summatively. Recent changes to the surgical curriculum have sought to address this, and further work into the impact of this needs to be done.

dc.format.extent599-606
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.publisherRoyal College of Surgeons of England
dc.subjectClinical education
dc.subjectFeedback
dc.subjectSurgical training
dc.subjectValidity
dc.subjectWorkplace-based assessments
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectClinical Competence
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectEducational Measurement
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnaires
dc.subjectOtolaryngology
dc.titleReview of the validity of DOPS as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeReview
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36374304
plymouth.issue7
plymouth.volume105
plymouth.publisher-urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2022.0052
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalThe Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
dc.identifier.doi10.1308/rcsann.2022.0052
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Users by role|Current Academic staff
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2021 Researchers by UoA|UoA23 Education
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Faculty of Health|Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|Research Groups|Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2029 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group|Plymouth|REF 2029 Researchers by UoA|UoA23 Education
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-02-25
dc.date.updated2024-04-17T15:35:03Z
dc.rights.embargodate2024-4-19
dc.identifier.eissn1478-7083
dc.rights.embargoperiod
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1308/rcsann.2022.0052


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV