Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?
S Khazali, A Bachi, T.T. Carpenter, A Moors, K Ballard
{"title":"Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?","authors":"S Khazali, A Bachi, T.T. Carpenter, A Moors, K Ballard","doi":"10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.","PeriodicalId":46400,"journal":{"name":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.