Gallagher et al.'s six validation benchmarks for surgical simulation instruments¶

Research Method · All research methods
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 review), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The review adopts an article by Gallagher et al. defining six types of validation benchmarks for surgical training instruments: face, content, construct, concurrent, discriminate and predictive validity. Construct validity is defined as "an evaluation of whether an instrument measures what it was designed to," usually tested as the ability to differentiate novices from experts. The review uses this taxonomy to categorize the validity evidence of each included study and to argue that future work should move to higher levels of validity.

Accounts¶

• Gallagher et al.'s six validation benchmarks for surgical simulation instruments: The review adopts an article by Gallagher et al. defining six types of validation benchmarks for surgical training instruments: face, content, construct, concurrent, discriminate and predictive validity. Construct validity is defined as "an evaluation of whether an instrument measures what it was designed to," usually tested as the ability to differentiate novices from experts. The review uses this taxonomy to categorize the validity evidence of each included study and to argue that future work should move to higher levels of validity. (Rasmussen Rasmus Christian et al. (2019))

Claims¶

• The EyeSi Surgical Simulator can differentiate VRS novices from experts, providing construct validity evidence [+M]

Related Research Methods¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Rasmussen Rasmus Christian, Grauslund Jakob, Vergmann Anna Stage. (2019). Simulation training in vitreoretinal surgery: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1098-x