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¶
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? Content was the strongest validity domain (12 of 24 tools scored 2, three scored 3), while consequences was weakest, with 15 tools (62.5%) scoring 0. → 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
Domain-level scoring of the 24 tools by two independent reviewers in the scoping review. The review reports tools "scored very poorly in the consequences domain", with 15 tools scoring 0 (62.5%), and separately that overall "tools scored highest in the content validity domain".
"Tools scored very poorly in the consequences domain, with three tools scoring 2 (12.5%), six tools scoring 1 (25.0%), and 15 tools scoring 0 (62.5%)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 broader claim this one bears on
- Validity evidence for procedure-specific orthopaedic surgery assessment tools is low, with total scores ranging from 1 to 9 of a maximum of 15 — a broader claim this one bears on
- Overall validity of eye-tracking measures of learning in IVR is limited, averaging 1.93 of 4, with data quality the weakest component — related
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.