Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29666918›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018

Procedure-specific assessment tool for flexible pharyngo-laryngoscopy: gathering validity evidence and setting pass-fail standards.

Jacob Melchiors, K Petersen, T Todsen, A Bohr, Lars Konge, Christian von Buchwald

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Designing self-assessment tools for learning five instrumental clinical procedures in ENT: A modified Delphi consensus approach.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacob MelchiorsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2200, Copenhagen E, Denmark. jacob.melchiors@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9929-9350
K PetersenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
T TodsenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2200, Copenhagen E, Denmark.
A BohrDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2200, Copenhagen E, Denmark.
Lars KongeCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Capital Region, Denmark.
Christian von BuchwaldDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2200, Copenhagen E, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe attainment of specific identifiable competencies is the primary measure of progress in the modern medical education system. The system, therefore, requires a method for accurately assessing competence to be feasible. Evidence of validity needs to be gathered before an assessment tool can be implemented in the training and assessment of physicians. This evidence of validity must according to the contemporary theory on validity be gathered from specific sources in a structured and rigorous manner. The flexible pharyngo-laryngoscopy (FPL) is central to the otorhinolaryngologist. We aim to evaluate the flexible pharyngo-laryngoscopy assessment tool (FLEXPAT) created in a previous study and to establish a pass-fail level for proficiency.

methodsEighteen physicians with different levels of experience (novices, intermediates, and experienced) were recruited to the study. Each performed an FPL on two patients. These procedures were video recorded, blinded, and assessed by two specialists. The score was expressed as the percentage of a possible max score. Cronbach's α was used to analyze internal consistency of the data, and a generalizability analysis was performed. The scores of the three different groups were explored, and a pass-fail level was determined using the contrasting groups' standard setting method.

resultsInternal consistency was strong with a Cronbach's α of 0.86. We found a generalizability coefficient of 0.72 sufficient for moderate stakes assessment. We found a significant difference between the novice and experienced groups (p < 0.001) and strong correlation between experience and score (Pearson's r = 0.75). The pass/fail level was established at 72% of the maximum score. Applying this pass-fail level in the test population resulted in half of the intermediary group receiving a failing score. DISCUSSION: We gathered validity evidence for the FLEXPAT according to the contemporary framework as described by Messick. Our results support a claim of validity and are comparable to other studies exploring clinical assessment tools. The high rate of physicians underperforming in the intermediary group demonstrates the need for continued educational intervention.

conclusionBased on our work, we recommend the use of the FLEXPAT in clinical assessment of FPL and the application of a pass-fail level of 72% for proficiency.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalAdultClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsAssessment toolFlexible laryngoscopyMastery learningMedical educationTechnical skillsValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.