ArticleRespiration; international review of thoracic diseases2025
Development and Validation of two Bronchoscopy Knowledge Assessments.
Article in Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Simulation-based training (SBT) is a key method for teaching bronchoscopy skills to pulmonology residents. A theoretical foundation can enhance SBT efficiency. This study developed and evaluated the validity of an anatomy and theoretical bronchoscopy exam using Kane's validity framework.
methodsNineteen anatomy and 58 theoretical exam questions, developed by pulmonology experts, were assessed through two Delphi rounds. Both exams were then taken by 53 prepared pulmonology residents. The theoretical exam was also taken by three unprepared groups: novices, intermediates, and experts. Using the residents' data, scoring evidence for the theoretical exam was evaluated using item difficulty and item discrimination indices, and generalization evidence was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Extrapolation evidence was obtained by comparing theoretical exam scores across the different groups. Implications evidence for both exams was gathered by evaluating residents' preparedness, based on exam performance and instructor feedback.
resultsThe Delphi procedure resulted in 19 anatomy and 31 theoretical questions. Item difficulty values predominantly ranged from 0.85 to 1.0; item discrimination indices mostly ranged from 0.0 to 0.25. Cronbach's alpha was 0.55. While scores appeared to correlate with experience, no significant differences were observed between the four groups. Most residents passed both exams on their first attempt, and instructors rated their anatomical knowledge as good.
conclusionExpert involvement and acceptable item difficulty, item discrimination, and internal consistency supported the exams' validity. The exams also effectively motivated residents to prepare for SBT. These findings highlight the value of pre-SBT exams in enhancing residents' preparation, allowing more time to focus on mastering procedural skills. </p>.
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.