ArticleBMC medical education2025
Establishing a minimum passing score for the rating scale in simulation training for surfactant administration using the LISA procedure.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
introductionIn a previous study, a rating scale for simulation training on surfactant administration using the LISA (Less Invasive Surfactant Administration) procedure was developed and validated. Our objective was to determine a minimum passing score for this rating scale to use it so that it could be used for normative and certifying evaluation.
methodsThe LISA scale comprises 8 categories and 25 items. It was developed and agreed upon by a panel of 12 LISA procedure experts, and subsequently validated through simulation sessions involving 40 learners. Two independent assessors evaluated these 40 simulations. The Cronbach's alpha score for this scale is 0.72, the R-squared value is 0.99, and the intra-class correlation coefficient is 0.92. Three different methods were employed to establish the minimum passing score: the Angoff method, the Borderline group method, and the Contrasting Group method. For the Angoff method, we enlisted 5 experts from the panel who developed the rating scale. In the Borderline Group method, the two assessors evaluated the 40 simulations following the prescribed methodology. For the Contrasting Group method, the outcomes of various simulation sessions were analyzed.
resultsUsing the Angoff method, the minimum passing score was determined to be 35 out of 50, equivalent to 70.6% (standard deviation: 15.8%). Employing the Borderline Group method yielded a minimum passing score of 31.70 out of 50, i.e., 63.4%. Finally, utilizing the Contrasting Group method, the minimum passing score was found to be 33 out of 50, or 66%.
conclusionThe three methods employed resulted in varying minimum passing scores. A higher score is likely to ensure enhanced safety and quality of patient care, while also facilitating the learner's progression in simulator training. We recommend considering a minimum passing score of 35 out of 50.
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.