Development and Testing of a Thoracostomy Assessment Tool Through Self, Peer and Expert Evaluation in a Simulation Environment

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/579424
Title:
Development and Testing of a Thoracostomy Assessment Tool Through Self, Peer and Expert Evaluation in a Simulation Environment
Author:
Lovett, Marissa
Issue Date:
2015
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Background: Self and peer evaluation using an objective assessment tool may be an effective way to evaluate procedural competency without requiring one-on-one expert attention in a simulation environment. Materials and Methods: An assessment tool was created as a checklist of critical steps involved in performing a thoracostomy. The checklist was verified by three expert physicians. Sixteen inexperienced medical students were recruited in pairs to perform one thoracostomy on a synthetic chest tube model in a simulated environment. After completing the procedure, the students used the assessment tool alongside a video recording of their procedure to conduct a self and peer evaluation. An expert physician conducted an independent evaluation of each student using the same assessment tool. The variations between the self, peer, and expert evaluations were compared to test the assessment tool for objectivity. Results: There was significant variation between self and expert evaluations (p = <0.00001 ) and between peer and expert responses (p = <0.00001). The significant variation occurred in 19 of the critical tasks. Conclusion: The assessment tool is not objective across the evaluators. Self and peer evaluation is an ineffective approach for assessing procedural competency, until variation is reduced among the 19 critical tasks.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Degree Name:
B.S.H.S.
Degree Level:
bachelors
Degree Program:
Honors College; Physiology
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Hamilton, Allan

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.titleDevelopment and Testing of a Thoracostomy Assessment Tool Through Self, Peer and Expert Evaluation in a Simulation Environmenten_US
dc.contributor.authorLovett, Marissaen
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en
dc.description.abstractBackground: Self and peer evaluation using an objective assessment tool may be an effective way to evaluate procedural competency without requiring one-on-one expert attention in a simulation environment. Materials and Methods: An assessment tool was created as a checklist of critical steps involved in performing a thoracostomy. The checklist was verified by three expert physicians. Sixteen inexperienced medical students were recruited in pairs to perform one thoracostomy on a synthetic chest tube model in a simulated environment. After completing the procedure, the students used the assessment tool alongside a video recording of their procedure to conduct a self and peer evaluation. An expert physician conducted an independent evaluation of each student using the same assessment tool. The variations between the self, peer, and expert evaluations were compared to test the assessment tool for objectivity. Results: There was significant variation between self and expert evaluations (p = <0.00001 ) and between peer and expert responses (p = <0.00001). The significant variation occurred in 19 of the critical tasks. Conclusion: The assessment tool is not objective across the evaluators. Self and peer evaluation is an ineffective approach for assessing procedural competency, until variation is reduced among the 19 critical tasks.en
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen
thesis.degree.nameB.S.H.S.en
thesis.degree.levelbachelorsen
thesis.degree.disciplineHonors Collegeen
thesis.degree.disciplinePhysiologyen
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen
dc.contributor.advisorHamilton, Allanen
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.