McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Surg Endosc. 2010 Aug;24(8):1834-41. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0882-8. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity.
The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both.
For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45).
The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.
模拟器可以提高内镜培训的效率、安全性和质量。然而,目前还没有客观、可靠和有效的工具来评估临床内镜技能。因此,有必要开发一种衡量教育策略效果的工具。本多中心、多学科研究旨在开发评估基本软性内镜技能的工具,并证明其可靠性和有效性。
全球胃肠道内镜技能评估量表(GAGES)上消化道内镜(GAGES-UE)和结肠镜检查(GAGES-C)是由内镜专家制定的评分量表。在操作过程中,由主治内镜医师(A)和观察者(O)在自我评估(S)中完成 GAGES 量表,以建立观察者间信度(使用组内相关系数[ICC])和内部一致性(使用 Cronbach 的 alpha)。在可能的情况下评估仪器,并与总分相关联。通过比较新手(NOV)和有经验的(EXP)内镜医师(Student's t 检验)来检验结构和外部有效性。计算了 GAGES-UE 和 GAGES-C 与已完成两者的参与者之间的相关性。
在 139 次完成的评估中(60 名 NOV,79 名 EXP),GAGES-UE 的观察者间信度(A 与 O)为 0.96,GAGES-C 为 0.97。GAGES-UE 的 S 与 A 之间的观察者间信度为 0.78,GAGES-C 为 0.89。GAGES-UE 的内部一致性为 0.89,GAGES-C 为 0.95。GAGES-UE 和 GAGES-C 中 NOV 和 EXP 内镜医师之间存在均值差异(14.4 +/- 3.7 与 18.5 +/- 1.6;p < 0.001)和 GAGES-C(11.8 +/- 3.8 与 18.8 +/- 1.3;p < 0.001)。GAGES-UE 和 GAGES-C 之间的评分之间存在良好的相关性(r = 0.75;n = 37)。当进行仪器操作时,与总分的相关性分别为 0.84(GAGES-UE;n = 73)和 0.86(GAGES-C;n = 45)。
GAGES-UE 和 GAGES-C 易于管理且一致,符合可靠性和有效性的高标准。它们可用于衡量模拟器培训的效果,并提供具体反馈。GAGES 结果可推广至北美和欧洲的内镜医师,可能有助于定义内镜技术的熟练程度。