title: Validation of an Arthroscopic Training Device.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the usefulness and conduct validation of a simulated arthroscopy training device to train basic arthroscopy skills.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-six participants including 12 novices, 12 intermediates, and 22 experts completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, previous arthroscopic experience, training potential, and statements about the device. Furthermore, participants performed a single task on the arthroscopic training device using the 0° camera and a probe. The task consisted of an attempt to carry a rubber ring across a helix inside a box as fast as possible. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing total task time and portal replacements of the camera and probe between all groups (median values [interquartile range]; Kruskal-Wallis test).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The median age was 35 (29-44) years. There were 4 female and 42 male participants. A total of 89% of the participants graded the overall training capacity ≥5 (35% graded it as 5, 39% as 6, and 15% as 7), and 83% believed that it is useful to improve any kind of arthroscopy. Ninety-three percent of the participants would recommend the arthroscopic training device to their colleagues. Sixty-one percent of the participants stated that there are certain disadvantages. The median time to complete the task was 108 (58-236) seconds. Novices (259 [123-435] seconds) performed tasks significantly slower than intermediates (169 [67-257] seconds) and experts (75 [49-132] seconds) (P = .005). Furthermore, portal changes were significantly more common in novices and intermediates than experts (P = .019).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  High scores in training potential were achieved with this arthroscopy simulator box, and most study participants believed that practice with the arthroscopic training device is useful for any kind of arthroscopy. Construct validity was established since novices, intermediates, and experts in real arthroscopy were discriminated with the arthroscopic training device in terms of time to successful completion of a task. However, 61% of the participants stated that there were certain disadvantages.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In every training tool using simulation, it is crucial to pass the first steps in the validation cascade. This study provides this step for further evaluation of this arthroscopic training device.
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: samy.bouaicha@balgrist.ch.
authors.forename: Samy
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bouaicha
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Thorsten
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Jentzsch
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Fabrice
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Scheurer
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rahm
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000193:education*; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002983:Clinical Competence; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D000066908:Simulation Training; D055815:Young Adult