Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2015

01-11-2015

External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS)

Authors: Monty A. Aghazadeh, Isuru S. Jayaratna, Andrew J. Hung, Michael M. Pan, Mihir M. Desai, Inderbir S. Gill, Alvin C. Goh

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We demonstrate the construct validity, reliability, and utility of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS), a clinical assessment tool designed to measure robotic technical skills, in an independent cohort using an in vivo animal training model.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional observational study design, 47 voluntary participants were categorized as experts (>30 robotic cases completed as primary surgeon) or trainees. The trainee group was further divided into intermediates (≥5 but ≤30 cases) or novices (<5 cases). All participants completed a standardized in vivo robotic task in a porcine model. Task performance was evaluated by two expert robotic surgeons and self-assessed by the participants using the GEARS assessment tool. Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the GEARS performance scores to determine construct validity; Spearman’s rank correlation measured interobserver reliability; and Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency.

Results

Performance evaluations were completed on nine experts and 38 trainees (14 intermediate, 24 novice). Experts demonstrated superior performance compared to intermediates and novices overall and in all individual domains (p < 0.0001). In comparing intermediates and novices, the overall performance difference trended toward significance (p = 0.0505), while the individual domains of efficiency and autonomy were significantly different between groups (p = 0.0280 and 0.0425, respectively). Interobserver reliability between expert ratings was confirmed with a strong correlation observed (r = 0.857, 95 % CI [0.691, 0.941]). Experts and participant scoring showed less agreement (r = 0.435, 95 % CI [0.121, 0.689] and r = 0.422, 95 % CI [0.081, 0.0672]). Internal consistency was excellent for experts and participants (α = 0.96, 0.98, 0.93).

Conclusions

In an independent cohort, GEARS was able to differentiate between different robotic skill levels, demonstrating excellent construct validity. As a standardized assessment tool, GEARS maintained consistency and reliability for an in vivo robotic surgical task and may be applied for skills evaluation in a broad range of robotic procedures.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudon VP, Dechet CB, Stephenson RA, Scardino PT, Sandhu JS (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 187(6):2087–2093PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudon VP, Dechet CB, Stephenson RA, Scardino PT, Sandhu JS (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 187(6):2087–2093PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Scott DJ (2006) Patient safety, competency, and the future of surgical simulation. Simul Healthc 1(3):164–170CrossRefPubMed Scott DJ (2006) Patient safety, competency, and the future of surgical simulation. Simul Healthc 1(3):164–170CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F, Gupta P, Reihsen T, Poniatowski LH, McDougall EM (2012) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association basic laparoscopic urologic surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26(2):190–196. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0414 CrossRefPubMed Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F, Gupta P, Reihsen T, Poniatowski LH, McDougall EM (2012) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association basic laparoscopic urologic surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26(2):190–196. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2011.​0414 CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference van der Meijden OA, Broeders IA, Schijven MP (2010) The SEP “robot”: a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the Da Vinci surgical system? Surg Technol Int 19:51–58PubMed van der Meijden OA, Broeders IA, Schijven MP (2010) The SEP “robot”: a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the Da Vinci surgical system? Surg Technol Int 19:51–58PubMed
6.
9.
go back to reference Ramos P, Montez J, Tripp A, Ng CK, Gill IS, Hung AJ (2014) Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int 113(5):836–842. doi:10.1111/bju.12559 CrossRefPubMed Ramos P, Montez J, Tripp A, Ng CK, Gill IS, Hung AJ (2014) Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int 113(5):836–842. doi:10.​1111/​bju.​12559 CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Goh A, Goldfarb DW, Sander J, Miles B, Dunkin B (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187:247–252CrossRefPubMed Goh A, Goldfarb DW, Sander J, Miles B, Dunkin B (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187:247–252CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
go back to reference Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174(1):269–272CrossRefPubMed Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174(1):269–272CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS)
Authors
Monty A. Aghazadeh
Isuru S. Jayaratna
Andrew J. Hung
Michael M. Pan
Mihir M. Desai
Inderbir S. Gill
Alvin C. Goh
Publication date
01-11-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4070-8

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2015 Go to the issue