TY - JOUR
T1 - A scoping review of assessment tools for laparoscopic suturing
AU - Bilgic, Elif
AU - Endo, Satoshi
AU - Lebedeva, Ekaterina
AU - Takao, Madoka
AU - McKendy, Katherine M.
AU - Watanabe, Yusuke
AU - Feldman, Liane S.
AU - Vassiliou, Melina C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2018/7/1
Y1 - 2018/7/1
N2 - Background: A needs assessment identified a gap in teaching and assessment of laparoscopic suturing (LS) skills. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools that were used to assess LS skills, to evaluate validity evidence available, and to provide guidance for selecting the right assessment tool for specific assessment conditions. Methods: Bibliographic databases were searched till April 2017. Full-text articles were included if they reported on assessment tools used in the operating room/simulation to (1) assess procedures that require LS or (2) specifically assess LS skills. Results: Forty-two tools were identified, of which 26 were used for assessing LS skills specifically and 26 for procedures that require LS. Tools had the most evidence in internal structure and relationship to other variables, and least in consequences. Conclusion: Through identification and evaluation of assessment tools, the results of this review could be used as a guideline when implementing assessment tools into training programs.
AB - Background: A needs assessment identified a gap in teaching and assessment of laparoscopic suturing (LS) skills. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools that were used to assess LS skills, to evaluate validity evidence available, and to provide guidance for selecting the right assessment tool for specific assessment conditions. Methods: Bibliographic databases were searched till April 2017. Full-text articles were included if they reported on assessment tools used in the operating room/simulation to (1) assess procedures that require LS or (2) specifically assess LS skills. Results: Forty-two tools were identified, of which 26 were used for assessing LS skills specifically and 26 for procedures that require LS. Tools had the most evidence in internal structure and relationship to other variables, and least in consequences. Conclusion: Through identification and evaluation of assessment tools, the results of this review could be used as a guideline when implementing assessment tools into training programs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048126118&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048126118&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-018-6199-8
DO - 10.1007/s00464-018-6199-8
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29721749
AN - SCOPUS:85048126118
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 32
SP - 3009
EP - 3023
JO - Surgical endoscopy
JF - Surgical endoscopy
IS - 7
ER -