Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37968662›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

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.

Katrine Prydz, Peter Dieckmann, Hans Fagertun, David Musson, Torben Wisborg

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Katrine PrydzInterprofessional Rural Research Team, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø - the Arctic University of Norway, Hammerfest, Norway. katrine.prydz@uit.no.
Peter DieckmannCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Center for Human Resources and Education, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hans FagertunCapturo AS, Skjetten, Norway.
David MussonFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Torben WisborgInterprofessional Rural Research Team, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø - the Arctic University of Norway, Hammerfest, Norway.
Hammerfest Hospital · NOCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation · DKMcMaster University · CA

Funding

Northern Norway Regional Health Authority Ref: HNF1368-17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NorMS-NTS tool is an assessment tool for assessing Norwegian medical students' non-technical skills (NTS). The NorMS-NTS was designed to provide student feedback, training evaluations, and skill-level comparisons among students at different study sites. Rather than requiring extensive rater training, the tool should capably suit the needs of busy doctors as near-peer educators. The aim of this study was to examine the usability and preliminary assess validity of the NorMS-NTS tool when used by novice raters.

methodsThis study focused on the usability of the assessment tool and its internal structure. Three raters used the NorMS-NTS tool to individually rate the team leader, a medical student, in 20 video-recorded multi-professional simulation-based team trainings. Based on these ratings, we examined the tools' internal structure by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (version 3.1) interrater reliability, internal consistency, and observability. After the rating process was completed, the raters answered a questionnaire about the tool's usability.

resultsThe ICC agreement and the sum of the overall global scores for all raters were fair: ICC (3,1) = 0.53. The correlation coefficients for the pooled raters were in the range of 0.77-0.91. Cronbach's alpha for elements, categories and global score were mostly above 0.90. The observability was high (95%-100%). All the raters found the tool easy to use, none of the elements were redundant, and the written instructions were helpful. The raters also found the tool easier to use once they had acclimated to it. All the raters stated that they could use the tool for both training and teaching.

conclusionsThe observed ICC agreement was 0.08 below the suggested ICC level for formative assessment (above 0.60). However, we know that the suggestion is based on the average ICC, which is always higher than a single-measure ICC. There are currently no suggested levels for single-measure ICC, but other validated NTS tools have single-measure ICC in the same range. We consider NorMS-NTS as a usable tool for formative assessment of Norwegian medical students' non-technical skills during multi-professional team training by raters who are new to the tool. It is necessary to further examine validity and the consequences of the tool to fully validate it for formative assessments.

Indexed as

PhysiciansStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementFeedbackHumansReproducibility of ResultsAssessmentAssessment toolsMedical studentsNontechnical skillsNorMS-NTSSimulation-based trainingValidation

Identifiers

PMID37968662
PMCPMC10652526
OpenAlexW4388697936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.