Validity evidence for procedure-specific orthopaedic surgery assessment tools is low, with total scores ranging from 1 to 9 of a maximum of 15¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: 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.
q3 i? Across 24 procedure-specific assessment tools in 22 included studies, validity evidence scored on the five-domain framework was low, ranging from 1 to 9 of a maximum score of 15. → Li Yibo 2024
Evidence¶
Li Yibo 2024¶
Li Yibo, Chan Robert, Menon Matthew R.G., Ryan Joanna F., Mador Brett, Campbell Sandra M., Turner Simon R. (2024). Validity Evidence for Procedure-specific Competence Assessment Tools in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Scoping Review. JAAOS Global Research & Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00065
q3 · i? · review · r3
Scoping review in which two independent reviewers scored validity evidence for 24 procedure-specific orthopaedic assessment tools using the five-domain framework of Ghaderi et al with a maximum score of 15. The review reports that "Validity evidence was low across all studies, ranging from 1 to 9 of a maximum score of 15".
"Validity evidence was low across all studies, ranging from 1 to 9 of a maximum score of 15 (Table 2)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Only 24 procedure-specific assessment tools exist across orthopaedic surgery, covering only trauma, sports medicine, spine, and upper extremity subspecialties — related
- Validity-evidence patterns in orthopaedic surgery mirror those in general surgery and cardiothoracic reviews, with strong content evidence and weak response-process and consequences evidence — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Across the five validity domains, tools scored highest on content and very poorly on consequences, with 15 of 24 tools scoring 0 in the consequences domain — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
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.