Are Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment of Added Value in Training Complex Pediatric Surgical Skills?
dx.doi.org shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on dx.doi.org ↗Article · Aug 2020 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
Study of 79 pediatric surgical trainees demonstrates that self-assessment shows no correlation with expert evaluation during PSARP simulation training, while peer assessment shows only weak correlation. Findings suggest expert assessment remains essential for valid competency evaluation, though self-assessment may support reflective learning.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Introduction Self-assessment aids “reflection-before-practice,” which is expected to result in a better understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses and consequently a better overall performance. This is, however, rarely used in surgical training. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between self-, peer-, and expert assessment on surgical skills of pediatric surgical trainees.
Materials and Methods A competency assessment tool for the posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (CAT-PSARP) was previously developed and validated. During international hands-on pediatric colorectal workshops in 2019 and 2020, participants practiced the PSARP on an inanimate anorectal malformation model. They were assisted by a peer and assessed by two independent expert observers, using the CAT-PSARP. After the training session, both self- and peer assessment were completed, using the same CAT-PSARP.
Results A total of 79 participants were included. No correlation was found between the overall CAT-PSARP scores of the expert observers and the self-assessment (r = 0.179, p = 0.116), while a weak correlation was found between experts and peer assessment (r = 0.317, p = 0.006). When comparing the self-assessment scores with peer assessment, a moderate correlation was found for the overall performance score (r = 0.495, p < 0.001). Additionally, the participants who were first to perform the procedure scored significantly better than those who trained second on the overall performance (mean 27.2 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001).
Conclusion Participants, peers, and experts seemed to have a unique view on the performance during training because there was little correlation between outcomes of the trainees and the experts. Self-assessment may be useful for reflection during training; however, expert assessment seems to be essential for assessment of surgical skills.