ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
A Portable Hip Arthroscopy Simulator Demonstrates Good Face and Content Validity with Incomplete Construct Validity.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a portable hip arthroscopy module in a regional orthopaedic unit.
methodsParticipants were recruited from a regional orthopaedic centre, and categorized into novice (0 arthroscopies), intermediate (1-29 arthroscopies), and expert (>50 arthroscopies) groups based on reported experience in arthroscopy. Face and content validity was evaluated by feedback from users immediately following completion of modules. Objective measurements, including time taken and subjective measurements consisting of simulation software metrics including, cam lesion locations attempts, scope strikes on bone, healthy bone burred, and cam lesion burred. Scores achieved by experts were recorded, and the median score was set at the level at which proficiency was demonstrated. Participant feedback on perceived educational use was collected following completion.
resultsIn total, 20 participant results were included for analysis. Good face and content validity was expressed by participants with previous arthroscopic experience. Number of scope strikes within the simulator-derived metrics accurately discerned between levels of experience. Novices had a mean of 5 strikes per attempt (SD
conclusionsThis hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrated acceptable face and content validity, with incomplete construct validity of simulator software metrics. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the module, highlighting that the addition of haptic feedback would be beneficial to improve procedural steps. Incorporation of tactile feedback to the modulator components would likely enable the software to accurately delineate between levels of experience. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates good face and content validity. The addition of haptic feedback in a hip arthroscopy simulator may improve learning.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.