The 105 included studies of orthopaedic technical-skills assessment were predominantly conducted in simulated settings with 2,088 resident participants¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2025: baselines and conditions change
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? Of 105 included studies, the majority (85%) assessed skills in the simulated environment, with 2,088 orthopaedic resident participants ranging from PGY 1 to 10. → James H.K. 2020
Evidence¶
James H.K. 2020¶
James H.K., Chapman A.W., Pattison G.T.R., Fisher J.D., Griffin D.R. (2020). Analysis of Tools Used in Assessing Technical Skills and Operative Competence in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgical Training: A Systematic Review. JBJS Reviews. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00167
q3 · i? · review · r3
Systematic review per PRISMA guidelines, registered with PROSPERO, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar to June 2019. The review reports "105 studies published between 1990 and 2019 were included", with 85% in simulated settings and 2,088 resident participants overall.
"One hundred and five studies published between 1990 and 2019 were included. Forty-two studies involved open orthopaedic surgical procedures, and 63 involved arthroscopy. The majority (85%) were used in the simulated environment."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Checklists show reasonable validity and reliability but have an early ceiling effect and are most appropriate for novice learners in formative settings
- Global rating scales discriminate between performance levels without a ceiling effect, making them useful for high-stakes summative assessment of advanced residents
- No current technical skills-assessment tool in orthopaedic surgical training fulfills accepted criteria for effective assessment
- Hybrid tools combining checklists with global rating scales (ASSET, OSATS) show promise but require further validation in the live operative theater — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Validity evidence for data-driven assessment tools relies predominantly on construct validity, with 11 of 35 studies using unvalidated tools — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.