Validity evidence for the Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation scoring system

• Published in: The American journal of surgery Vol. 207; no. 2; pp. 218 - 225
• Main Authors: Trinca, Kristen D., M.D, Cox, Tiffany C., M.D, Pearl, Jonathan P., M.D, Ritter, E. Matthew, M.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2014; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Clinical Competence; Colonoscopy; Colonoscopy - education; Computer Simulation; Educational Measurement - methods; Efficiency; Endoscopy training; Flexible endoscopy; Gastroenterology; General Surgery - education; Humans; Intubation; Objective performance; Performance evaluation; Simulation; Skills; Studies; Surgery; User-Computer Interface; Virtual reality; Simulation; Flexible endoscopy; Endoscopy training; Colonoscopy; Objective performance
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.026

Abstract Background Low-cost, objective systems to assess and train endoscopy skills are needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation to assess the skills required to perform endoscopy. Methods Thirty-eight subjects were included in this study, all of whom performed 4 tasks. The scoring system measured performance by calculating precision and efficiency. Data analysis assessed the relationship between colonoscopy experience and performance on each task and the overall score. Results Endoscopic trainees' Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation scores correlated significantly with total colonoscopy experience ( r = .61, P = .003) and experience in the past 12 months ( r = .63, P = .002). Significant differences were seen among practicing endoscopists, nonendoscopic surgeons, and trainees ( P < .0001). When the 4 tasks were analyzed, each showed significant correlation with colonoscopy experience (scope manipulation, r = .44, P = .044; tool targeting, r = .45, P  = .04; loop management, r = .47, P = .032; mucosal inspection, r = .65, P = .001) and significant differences in performance between the endoscopist groups, except for mucosal inspection (scope manipulation, P < .0001; tool targeting, P = .002; loop management, P = .0008; mucosal inspection, P = .27). Conclusions Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation objectively assesses the technical skills required to perform endoscopy and shows promise as a platform for proficiency-based skills training.