2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of a Validated Rating Scale for Self-Assessment in Microsurgical Training

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although a common tool for educational assessment, and particularly so in cultural competency assessment, 26,27,29,40,46,47 self-assessment can vary in reliability. 48 There is also the possibility of recall bias in reporting past medical training related to the skills. We surveyed a single residency program at one point in time; therefore, our results may have limited generalizability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although a common tool for educational assessment, and particularly so in cultural competency assessment, 26,27,29,40,46,47 self-assessment can vary in reliability. 48 There is also the possibility of recall bias in reporting past medical training related to the skills. We surveyed a single residency program at one point in time; therefore, our results may have limited generalizability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grant and Temple-Oberle reported that self-evaluation scores of UWOMSA correlate well with preceptor scores and surgical residents likely benefit from repetitive training. 28 Furthermore, Satterwhite et al suggested better improvement in the performance of microsurgical tasks among residents who use the web-based microsurgical curriculum, especially among those with smaller prior microsurgical experience. 9 Virtual training and video teaching have become more frequent due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This fact is reflected, for instance, in the increasing need to quantify microsurgery training by using scales that attempt to measure these subjective parameters. Despite of the fact that there is still a lack of standardization, some of the main scales compile the following issues ( 5 , 11 ): self-confidence, theoretical knowledge [Global Rating Scale (GRS) and Northwestern Objective Microanastomosis Assessment Tool (NOMAT)], subjective self-assessment or by a third party [Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), University of Western Ontario microsurgical skills acquisition/assessment (UWOMSA), GRS, and NOMAT] ( 66 ), objective motion control (The Stanford Microsurgery and Resident Training (SMaRT)) ( 67 ), analysis of the final result of the anastomosis (UWOMSA, GRS, and NOMAT), time to complete anastomosis (UWOMSA, GRS) and transferability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%