ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023
Review of the validity of DOPS as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees.
Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harmonising Gastroenterology Training: An Analysis of Gastroenterology Training Curricula of the United European Gastroenterology Member Societies.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Observational
- From Assistance to Autonomy: Evaluating Procedural Competency in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Application of directly observed procedural skills in hospital infection training: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Application of CPBL combined with mind mapping in acute abdomen clinical training to improve post-training competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Effect of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills on Learning and Satisfaction of Students in Community Dentistry Course.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2024Article
- Improving assessment of procedural skills in health sciences education: a validation study of a rubrics system in neurophysiotherapy.BMC psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical trainees at all stages are mandated to use workplace-based assessments (WBAs) to gain feedback from their trainers. Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) is a tool to assess hands-on surgical skills. This review of the literature seeks to ascertain how valid DOPS are as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees according to the American Psychology Association (APA) validity framework.
methodsRelevant literature was identified through a structured search of Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, with further papers included on citation review. Following this, papers meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the final review specifying those investigating WBAs including DOPS, assessments in practice rather than simulation and specifically for postgraduate surgical trainees.
findingsSixteen papers were included in the final analysis. Extracted data from the returned papers were assessed for evidence of validity in each of the five domains on the APA framework: validity based on consequence, response process, reliability, content and relationship to other variables. There are studies that show good parameters for reliability and validity for specific DOPS used in endoscopy and otolaryngology. However, there is confusion over the purpose of DOPS among trainers and trainees as to whether they should be used formatively or summatively. Recent changes to the surgical curriculum have sought to address this, and further work into the impact of this needs to be done.
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.