Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 8/2017

01-12-2017 | Original Article • GENERAL ORTHPAEDICS - TRAUMA

Critiquing operative fracture fixation: the development of an assessment tool

Authors: D. H. Hawkes, W. J. Harrison

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Assessments are fundamentally important for training surgeons. Currently, there are no formal means of assessing operative fracture fixation. An assessment tool has been developed which can be used by trainers to critique the quality of a trainee’s operative fracture fixation. The tool is based on the AO principles of fracture management. The reliability and validity of the assessment were tested in a prospective study.

Methods

The assessment tool comprises of 4 domains focusing on the different factors pertinent to fracture fixation (reduction, stability, implant and overall impression). Reliability and validity were evaluated by asking 10 consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to score 20 test cases on two different occasions at least 7 weeks apart. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability were assessed by the inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and content validity by the content validity ratio (CVR).

Results

Cronbach’s alpha was 0.976, with all component criteria correlating well with each other. Total score inter-rater reliability, for a single assessor, as given by the ICC, was 0.708. Overall test–retest reliability was 0.961. The CVR for the assessment tool was 0.65 (which is above the critical value for establishing validity with 10 assessors).

Conclusions

Internal consistency is demonstrated by the excellent Cronbach’s alpha with substantial single assessor and excellent test–retest reliability also shown. The CVR above the critical value illustrates that the assessment is valid. The assessment tool has a number of applications within training and service evaluation that could benefit the global orthopaedic community.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wilson T, Sahu A, Johnson D, Turner P (2010) The effect of trainee involvement on procedure and list times: a statistical analysis with discussion of current issues affecting orthopaedic training in UK. Surgeon 8:15–19CrossRefPubMed Wilson T, Sahu A, Johnson D, Turner P (2010) The effect of trainee involvement on procedure and list times: a statistical analysis with discussion of current issues affecting orthopaedic training in UK. Surgeon 8:15–19CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Halpin G, Halpin G (1982) Experimental investigation of the effects of study and testing on student learning, retention, and ratings of instruction. J Educ Psychol 74:32–38CrossRef Halpin G, Halpin G (1982) Experimental investigation of the effects of study and testing on student learning, retention, and ratings of instruction. J Educ Psychol 74:32–38CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Newble DI, Jaeger K (1983) The effects of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 17:165–171CrossRefPubMed Newble DI, Jaeger K (1983) The effects of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 17:165–171CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Stillman PL, Haley HL, Regan MB, Philbin MM (1991) Positive effects of a clinical performance assessment program. Acad Med 66:481–483CrossRefPubMed Stillman PL, Haley HL, Regan MB, Philbin MM (1991) Positive effects of a clinical performance assessment program. Acad Med 66:481–483CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Schatzker J (2000) AO philosophy and principles. In: Ruedi TP, Murphy WM (eds) AO principles of fracture management. Thieme, New York, pp 1–4 Schatzker J (2000) AO philosophy and principles. In: Ruedi TP, Murphy WM (eds) AO principles of fracture management. Thieme, New York, pp 1–4
7.
go back to reference Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608CrossRefPubMed Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Streiner DL (2003) Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 80:99–103CrossRefPubMed Streiner DL (2003) Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 80:99–103CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28:563–575CrossRef Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28:563–575CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 45:197–210CrossRef Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 45:197–210CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Critiquing operative fracture fixation: the development of an assessment tool
Authors
D. H. Hawkes
W. J. Harrison
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1943-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 8/2017 Go to the issue