A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Development and validation of a theoretical test of proficiency for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy. | LitMetric

Background: Testing stimulates learning, improves long-term retention, and promotes technical performance. No purpose-orientated test of competence in the theoretical aspects of VATS lobectomy has previously been presented. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to develop and gather validity evidence for a theoretical test on VATS lobectomy consisting of multiple-choice questions.

Methods: Four European VATS lobectomy experts were interviewed to explore their views on important theoretical VATS lobectomy knowledge (step 1). This information was used to construct the test items in compliance with existing guidelines for multiple-choice questions (step 2). The experts rated the relevance of the items to confirm content validity in a modified Delphi approach (step 3). Finally, the test was administered to physicians, who were categorised into different experience levels based on their experience in VATS procedures overall and in VATS lobectomies specifically. Their answers were used to achieve construct validity (step 4).

Results: Initially, 81 items were constructed and two Delphi iterations reduced the test to 50 items. Item analysis led to the exclusion of 19 items and the mean discrimination index of the 31 final items was 0.26. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was 0.75. The mean item difficulty was calculated to 0.63. According to performed VATS procedures, significantly different test performances were detected when comparing the group performances (p = 0.002) and the experts performed significantly better than the novices (p < 0.001) and intermediates (p = 0.01). In the category of performed VATS lobectomies, significant group performances were also found. In this category, the experts were also significantly better than the novices (p < 0.001), the trainees (p = 0.002), and the intermediates (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: This study led to the development of a theoretical test on VATS lobectomy consisting of multiple-choice questions. Both content and construct validity evidence were established.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3975-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

vats lobectomy
20
theoretical test
8
vats
8
test items
8
vats procedures
8
test
7
items
6
lobectomy
5
development validation
4
theoretical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!