This is an outdated version published on 2022-04-05. Read the most recent version.

Reliability and Discriminant Validity of a Checklist for Surgical Scrubbing, Gowning and Gloving

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2021.1221

Keywords:

Medical education, Surgery, Augmented reality, Virtual reality

Abstract

Background: Surgical scrubbing, gowning, and gloving is challenging for medical trainees to learn in the operating room environment. Currently, there are few reliable or valid tools to evaluate a trainee’s ability to scrub, gown and glove. The objective of this study is to test the reliability and validity of a checklist that evaluates the technique of surgical scrubbing, gowning and gloving (SGG).

Methods: This Institutional Review Board-approved study recruited medical students, residents, and fellows from an academic, tertiary care institution. Trainees were stratified based upon prior surgical experience as novices, intermediates, or experts. Participants were instructed to scrub, gown and glove in a staged operating room while being video-recorded. Two blinded raters scored the videos according to the SGG checklist. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient for total scores and Cohen’s kappa for item completion. The internal consistency and discriminant validity of the SGG checklist were assessed using Cronbach alpha and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

Results: 56 participants were recruited (18 novices, 19 intermediates, 19 experts). The intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability for the overall checklist (0.990), and the Cohen’s kappa ranged from 0.598 to 1.00. The checklist also had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.950). A significant difference in scores was observed between all groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: This checklist demonstrates a high inter-rater reliability, discriminant validity, and internal consistency. It has the potential to enhance medical education curricula.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Park J, MacRae H, Musselman LJ, Rossos P, Hamstra SJ, Wolman S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality simulator training: transfer to live patients. Am J Surg. 2007 Augt;194(2):205-11.

Pirie S. Surgical gowning and gloving. J Perioper Pract. 2010 Jun;20(6):207-9.

Pirie S. Hand washing and surgical hand antisepsis. J Perioper Pract. 2010 May;20(5):169-72.

Samia H, Khan S, Lawrence J, Delaney CP. Simulation and its role in training. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2013 Mar;26(1):47-55.

Hampton BS, Craig LB, Abbott JF, Buery-Joyner SD, Dalrymple JL, Forstein DA, et al. To the point: teaching the obstetrics and gynecology medical student in the operating room. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):464-8.

Kanumuri P, Ganai S, Wohaibi EM, Bush RW, Grow DR, Seymour NE. Virtual reality and computer-enhanced training devices equally improve laparoscopic surgical skill in novices. JSLS. 2008 Jul-Sep;12(3):219-26.

Berg K, Berg D, Riesenberg LA, Mealey K, Schaeffer A, Weber D, et al. The development of validated checklist for Foley catheterization: preliminary results. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(6):519-24.

Berg K, Riesenberg LA, Berg D, Schaeffer A, Davis J, Justice EM, et al. The development of a validated checklist for radial arterial line placement: preliminary results. Am J Med Qual. 2014 May-Jun;29(3):242-6.

Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006 Feb;119(2):166 e7-16.

Grant EC, Grant VJ, Bhanji F, Duff JP, Cheng A, Lockyer JM. The development and assessment of an evaluation tool for pediatric resident competence in leading simulated pediatric resuscitations. Resuscitation. 2012 Jul;83(7):887-93.

van der Heide PA, van Toledo-Eppinga L, van der Heide M, van der Lee JH. Assessment of neonatal resuscitation skills: a reliable and valid scoring system. Resuscitation. 2006 Nov;71(2):212-21.

Baez J, Powell E, Leo M, Stolz U, Stolz L. Derivation of a procedural performance checklist for ultrasound-guided femoral arterial line placement using the modified Delphi method. J Vasc Access. 2020 Sep;21(5):715-22.

Ilgen JS, Ma IW, Hatala R, Cook DA. A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med Educ. 2015 Feb;49(2):161-73.

Hasty BN, Lau JN, Tekian A, Miller SE, Shipper ES, Bereknyei Merrell S, et al. Validity Evidence for a Knowledge Assessment Tool for a Mastery Learning Scrub Training Curriculum. Acad Med. 2020 Jan;95(1):129-35.

Barnum TJ, Salzman DH, Odell DD, Even E, Reczynski A, Corcoran J, et al. Orientation to the Operating Room: An Introduction to the Surgery Clerkship for Third-Year Medical Students. MedEdPORTAL. 2017 Nov 14;13:10652.

Jeyakumar A, Sabu S, Segeran F. Adequacy of Scrubbing, Gowning and Gloving Among Operating room Nurses. IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science. 2017;6(1):61-4.

Canton S, Foley C, Donnellan N. Development of Surgical Scrubbing, Gowning and Gloving Checklist using the Delphi Method. MedEdPublish. 2020 Mar 26;9.

Stufflebeam DL. Guidelines for developing evaluation checklists: the checklists development checklist (CDC). Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center Retrieved on January 16 2000.

Dong Y, Suri HS, Cook DA, Kashani KB, Mullon JJ, Enders FT, et al. Simulation-based objective assessment discerns clinical proficiency in central line placement: a construct validation. Chest. 2010 May;137(5):1050-6.

Hanlon C, Medhin G, Alem A, Araya M, Abdulahi A, Hughes M, et al. Detecting perinatal common mental disorders in Ethiopia: validation of the self-reporting questionnaire and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. J Affect Disord. 2008 Jun;108(3):251-6.

Murphy SP, Kaiser LL, Townsend MS, Allen LH. Evaluation of validity of items for a food behavior checklist. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Jul;101(7):751-61.

Hallgren KA. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23-34.

Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.

Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement. 1960 Apr;20(1):37-46.

McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica. 2012 Oct 15; 22(3):276-82.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika. 1951 Sep;16(3):297-334.

Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education. 2011;2: 53.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Available from: https://www.aorn.org/guidelines/about-aorn-guidelines. Last updated August 15, 2019; cited September 10 2019.

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Step 2 CS. Available from: https://www.usmle.org/step-2-cs/. Last updated July 1 2019; cited July 18, 2019.

Mohan S, Follansbee C, Nwankwo U, Hofkosh D, Sherman FS, Hamilton MF. Embedding patient simulation in a pediatric cardiology rotation: a unique opportunity for improving resident education. Congenit Heart Dis. 2015 Jan-Feb;10(1):88-94.

Sperling JD, Clark S, Kang Y. Teaching medical students a clinical approach to altered mental status: simulation enhances traditional curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2013 Apr 3;18:1-8.

Dayal AK, Fisher N, Magrane D, Goffman D, Bernstein PS, Katz NT. Simulation training improves medical students' learning experiences when performing real vaginal deliveries. Simul Healthc. 2009 Fall;4(3):155-9.

Hodges B, McNaughton N, Tiberius R. OSCE checklists do not capture increasing. Acad Med. 1999;74:1129-3.

Reronr R. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an GSCE-format examination. Acad Med. 1998;73:993-7.

Ringsted C, Ostergaard D, Ravn L, Pedersen JA, Berlac PA, van der Vleuten CP. A feasibility study comparing checklists and global rating forms to assess resident performance in clinical skills. Med Teach. 2003 Nov;25(6):654-8.

van der Vleuten CP, Swanson DB. Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: state of the art. Teaching and Learning in Medicine: An International Journal. 1990 Jan 1;2(2):58-76.

Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Medical education. 2010 Jan;44(1):101-8.

Cunnington JP, Neville AJ, Norman GR. The risks of thoroughness: Reliability and validity of global ratings and checklists in an OSCE. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996 Jan 1;1(3):227-33.

Norman G. Editorial–checklists vs. ratings, the illusion of objectivity, the demise of skills and the debasement of evidence. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2005 Mar 1;10(1):1-3.

Norman G, Van der Vleuten C, De Graaff E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of validity, efficiency and acceptability. Medical education. 1991 Mar;25(2):119-26.

treiner DL. Statistics Commentary Series: Commentary No. 20: Statistical Significance and Practical Importance. Journal of clinical psychopharmacology. 2017 Jun 1;37(3):287-8.

Van der Vleuten C, Norman G, De Graaff E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Medical education. 1991 Mar;25(2):110-8.

Eva KW, Hodges BD. Scylla or Charybdis? Can we navigate between objectification and judgement in assessment? Medical education. 2012 Sep;46(9):914-9.

Govaerts MJ, Van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Muijtjens AM. Broadening perspectives on clinical performance assessment: rethinking the nature of in-training assessment. Advances in health sciences education. 2007 May;12(2):239-60.

Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Medical education. 2003 Nov;37(11):1012-6.

Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. A plea for new psychometric models in educational assessment. Medical education. 2006 Apr;40(4):296-300.

Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE, Huot SJ. Effects of training in direct observation of medical residents' clinical competence: a randomized trial. Annals of internal medicine. 2004 Jun 1;140(11):874-81.

Kogan JR, Hess BJ, Conforti LN, Holmboe ES. What drives faculty ratings of residents' clinical skills? The impact of faculty's own clinical skills. Academic Medicine. 2010 Oct 1;85(10):S25-S8.

Lievens F. Assessor training strategies and their effects on accuracy, interrater reliability, and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001 Apr;86(2):255.

Campbell S, Cantrill J. Consensus methods in prescribing research. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2001 Feb 15;26(1):5-14.

lahlafi A, Burge S. What should undergraduate medical students know about psoriasis? Involving patients in curriculum development: modified Delphi technique. BMJ. 2005 Mar 17;330(7492):633-6.

Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, Brodaty H, Fratiglioni L, Ganguli M, et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. The Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2112-7.

Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical education. 2003 Sep;37(9):830-7.

Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity threats: overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Medical education. 2004 Mar;38(3):327-33.

Downloads

Published

2021-11-24 — Updated on 2022-04-05

Versions

How to Cite

Canton, S. P., Foley, C. E., Fulcher, I., Newcomb, L. K., Rindos, N., & Donnellan, N. M. (2022). Reliability and Discriminant Validity of a Checklist for Surgical Scrubbing, Gowning and Gloving. International Journal of Medical Students, 10(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2021.1221

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Original Article

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Stephen P. Canton, Christine E. Foley, Isabel Fulcher, Laura K. Newcomb, Noah Rindos, Nicole M. Donnellan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site; with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
    2. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
    4. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
    5. The Author represents and warrants that:
      1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
      2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
      3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
      4. the Work has not previously been published;
      5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
      6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
    6. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from the Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Enforcement of copyright

The IJMS takes the protection of copyright very seriously.

If the IJMS discovers that you have used its copyright materials in contravention of the license above, the IJMS may bring legal proceedings against you seeking reparation and an injunction to stop you using those materials. You could also be ordered to pay legal costs.

If you become aware of any use of the IJMS' copyright materials that contravenes or may contravene the license above, please report this by email to contact@ijms.org

 

Infringing material

If you become aware of any material on the website that you believe infringes your or any other person's copyright, please report this by email to contact@ijms.org