ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
Reliability of assessment of medical students' non-technical skills using a behavioural marker system: does clinical experience matter?
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond reliability: assessing rater competence when using a behavioural marker system.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Collecting evidence of validity for an assessment tool for Norwegian medical students' non-technical skills (NorMS-NTS): usability and reliability when used by novice raters.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- A study of validity and usability evidence for non-technical skills assessment tools in simulated adult resuscitation scenarios.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Non-technical skills are recognised to play an integral part in safe and effective patient care. Medi-StuNTS (Medical Students' Non-Technical Skills) is a behavioural marker system developed to enable assessment of medical students' non-technical skills. This study aimed to assess whether newly trained raters with high levels of clinical experience could achieve reliability coefficients of >0.7 and to compare differences in inter-rater reliability of raters with varying clinical experience. Methods: Forty-four raters attended a workshop on Medi-StuNTS before independently rating three videos of medical students participating in immersive simulation scenarios. Data were grouped by raters' levels of clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: Eleven raters with more than 10 years of clinical experience achieved single-measure ICC of 0.37 and average-measures ICC of 0.87. Fourteen raters with more than or equal to 5 years and less than 10 years of clinical experience achieved single-measure ICC of 0.09 and average-measures ICC of 0.59. Nineteen raters with less than 5 years of clinical experience achieved single-measure ICC of 0.09 and average-measures ICC 0.65. Conclusions: Using 11 newly trained raters with high levels of clinical experience produced highly reliable ratings that surpassed the prespecified inter-rater reliability standard; however, a single rater from this group would not achieve sufficiently reliable ratings. This is consistent with previous studies using other medical behavioural marker systems. This study demonstrated a decrease in inter-rater reliability of raters with lower levels of clinical experience, suggesting caution when using this population as raters for assessment of non-technical skills.
Indexed as
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.