title: Validity and reliability of the robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills have been developed to measure the skill of surgical trainees. Our aim was to develop an Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills specifically for trainees learning robotic surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  This is a multiinstitutional study conducted in eight academic training programs. We created an assessment form to evaluate robotic surgical skill through five inanimate exercises. Gynecology, general surgery, and urology residents, Fellows, and faculty completed five robotic exercises on a standard training model. Study sessions were recorded and randomly assigned to three blinded judges who scored performance using the assessment form. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing scores between participants with different levels of surgical experience; interrater and intrarater reliability were also assessed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We evaluated 83 residents, nine Fellows, and 13 faculty totaling 105 participants; 88 (84%) were from gynecology. Our assessment form demonstrated construct validity with faculty and Fellows performing significantly better than residents (mean scores 89±8 faculty, 74±17 Fellows, 59±22 residents; P<.01). In addition, participants with more robotic console experience scored significantly higher than those with fewer prior console surgeries (P<.01). Robotic Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills demonstrated good interrater reliability across all five drills (mean Cronbach's α 0.79±0.02). Intrarater reliability was also high (mean Spearman's correlation 0.91±0.11).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We developed a valid and reliable assessment form for robotic surgical skill. When paired with standardized robotic skill drills, this form may be useful to distinguish between levels of trainee performance.
  
  
  METHODS
  II.
authors.affiliation: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania; Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey; and Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
authors.forename: Nazema Y
authors.initials: NY
authors.lastname: Siddiqui
authors.forename: Michael L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Galloway
authors.forename: Elizabeth J
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Geller
authors.forename: Isabel C
authors.initials: IC
authors.lastname: Green
authors.forename: Hye-Chun
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Hur
authors.forename: Kyle
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Langston
authors.forename: Michael C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Pitter
authors.forename: Megan E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Tarr
authors.forename: Martin A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Martino
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D003162:Competency-Based Education; D004503:Education, Medical, Graduate; D013502:General Surgery / Q000193:education*; D006176:Gynecology / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012371:Robotics; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods*; D013664:Teaching Materials; D014572:Urology / Q000193:education*