Claims

Construct validity evidence: experienced neurosurgeons performed significantly better than trainees on aneurysm clipping simulation models

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In Belykh et al. (2021), construct validity assessed with the OSAACS tool showed experienced neurosurgeons performed significantly better than trainees. → Joseph Fredrick J. 2023

Evidence

Joseph Fredrick J. 2023

Joseph Fredrick J., Vanluchene Hanne E. R., Bervini David. (2023). Simulation training approaches in intracranial aneurysm surgery—a systematic review. Neurosurgical Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-01995-5

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's Table 3 entry for Belykh et al. 2021, an ex vivo chicken simulation study using the OSAACS tool, reports construct validity in that "experienced neurosurgeons performed significantly better than trainees". No effect size is printed.

"construct validity (experienced neurosurgeons performed significantly better than trainees)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.